Preamble

The House met at half-past
Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

TAY ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Tay Road Bridge, presented by Mr. Maclay (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Immigrants

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Minister of Labour how many British employers have asked for A vouchers to sponsor the entry of immigrants under the Immigration Act.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): 418 applications for vouchers had been received from employers up to 3rd July.

Mr. Dugdale: Is that the sort of number which the Minister expected, or is it in excess, or less?

Mr. Hare: It is difficult to say, because we have to judge how we go on this problem. It is very difficult to give any concrete answer to the hon. Gentleman at this stage, as we have only just started.

Mr. Chapman: Have there been consultations between the Ministry and employers, particularly with the nationalised industries, to see whether on some co-ordinated basis they could recruit

together in areas such as the West Indies for the labour that is needed?

Mr. Hare: Every vacancy is checked by my Department. We are working closely with the British Transport Commission and other organisations which are carrying out recruiting schemes. If employers wish my assistance in this connection, as I have said before in this House, I shall be ready to consider any proposals that they are prepared to put forward.

Mr. Gurden: asked the Minister of Labour how many applications he has received for permits from Commonwealth immigrants; and how many have been granted.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour how many applications he has received for permits for Commonwealth immigrants; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hare: Up to 3rd July, 2,817 applications for employment vouchers had been received from Commonwealth countries, and 2471 vouchers had been issued.

Mr. Gurden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recruiting which has been going on may be unnecessary? Surely it would be better to fill the vacancies from those unemployed persons on the registers at employment exchanges and that, if possible, they should be brought from Birmingham rather than from overseas?

Mr. Hare: I have another Question to answer regarding recruitment. Perhaps I could deal with that point later.

Mr. Lipton: In granting these permits, does the Minister advise applicants about the parts of the country in which not only would it be possible to get a job but also to find reasonable housing accommodation? In other words, does the right hon. Gentleman try to divert people from areas which a re grossly overcrowded instead of persuading them to go to areas where there are jobs and no accommodation?

Mr. Hare: Areas where there are problems regarding housing are well known. The concept of the Act was not to prohibit immigration but to control it.

Mr. Fisher: Is it the position that—probably because of their anxiety to get to this country before the door was


shut—a great many people came here on 1st July; and perhaps the numbers were rather exaggerated and that therefore correspondingly, possibly, my right hon. Friend may have to reduce the numbers a little in the immediate future? But, in the long term and looking at it later in the year, would he envisage being able to allow in a somewhat larger number than at the moment? Can my right hon. Friend give the House some indication of the numbers of immigrants, starting, say, from the beginning of 1963, that he would envisage admitting?

Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend is right in saying that a large number of people did come in at the last moment before the recent legislation was enacted. So far I have not been in a position of having to refuse many applicants because the numbers have been fairly small. I think that it would be most unwise for the Government or the House to adopt a set attitude as to how this problem should be handled in future, when the number of applications may rise. We have to see what is the situation from month to month and how many of these people can be comfortably and reasonably absorbed.

Mr. Cleaver: To what extent is my right hon. Friend taking housing difficulties into account before issuing permits?

Mr. Hare: Naturally, I have to take into consideration not only difficulties regarding housing but a number of other social problems which would affect the well-being of people who come to this country.

Mr. Dugdale: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), the Minister said that the new Act was designed to control immigration, but what he and many others are concerned about is the control of immigrants when they arrive here so that they may go to the right places instead of the wrong ones, which is quite a different question.

Mr. Hare: I entirely see the point made by the right hon. Member. Obviously the difficulty of people going to certain areas is well known, but we do not seek to direct people. I think the right hon. Member would find himself in difficulties if he were to pursue that point too far.

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Minister of Labour what is the quota of unskilled immigrants from each country of the Commonwealth allowed into the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Labour how many applications have so far been received for entry vouchers from intending Commonwealth immigrants who have no specified job arranged or special skill; how many have been issued; and what system of allocation of such vouchers is being used so as to share them among the Commonwealth countries most affected.

Mr. Hare: Up to 3rd July, 1,870 applications had been received from immigrants with no specific jab or special skill, and 1,620 vouchers had been issued. No quotas have been allotted to individual Commonwealth countries. I explained in the debate on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill that vouchers would be issued to applicants with no specific job or special skill on the basis of first come, first served, and that is being done.

Mr. Dugdale: Are neither official nor unofficial quotas being in any way operated? It would be as well to be perfectly clear on this point.

Mr. Hare: We went into this in the debate. I see the right hon. Gentleman's point in favour of a quota system, but it would be very difficult to apply such a system fairly. I will give two examples. If the system were based on population, it would give an overwhelming advantage to India. If it were based on the number of immigrants before control operated, Pakistan would say that she was being penalised through the exercise of restraint at our request.

Mr. Chapman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the difficulty? Once the figures reach the point where he has to stop people entering, Commonwealth countries, in the absence of any knowledge about how admissions are being shared out among themselves, will never know what to do about encouraging people to apply for entry vouchers. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that once he gets to the point of stopping people entering, he will have to let the Commonwealth


know how he is sharing out the vouchers that he has available?

Mr. Hare: It would be the greatest possible mistake to tie ourselves down at this stage to some rigid scheme for the distribution of vouchers when it is not so far necessary. We shall learn a lot as we go along. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is not an easy problem. I keep an open mind about it, but it would not be right at this juncture to tie ourselves down to what has been suggested.

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Minister of Labour what is his policy in regard to the issue of labour permits under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act to labour recruited in the West Indies by the British Transport Commission.

Mr. Hare: Employers wishing to bring Commonwealth citizens to this country for specific jobs may obtain employment vouchers for them on application to my Ministry. Men recruited by the British Transport Commission in the West Indies will therefore get vouchers.

Mr. Pannell: As on 1st May this year, there were more than 35,000 Commonwealth immigrants unemployed in this country, that being more than 20 per cent. of the total unemployment in the main industrial areas, does not my right hon. Friend consider that the recruiting agencies are superfluous, and will he ensure that all possible means of recruiting immigrants in this country will be explored before permits are issued for others to come 4,000 miles from the West Indies?

Mr. Hare: I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that the British Transport Commission is in the same position as any other employer and that under the terms of the Act it is open to it to nominate a person from the Commonwealth for a certain job. It would be unfair if it were treated in a different way from other employers. However, I have noted what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Lipton: Is not this about the only category of immigrants coming to work here where the employer takes trouble to ensure that housing accommodation is available for them, and to

that extent might this not provide an example for the Minister to follow in granting other permits?

Mr. Hare: It is true that lodging arrangements are made. On the general point raised by my hon. Friend, we never proposed in the Bill to cut off immigration until all the unemployed were at work. We must keep a proper perspective in this matter.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Labour up to what total vouchers for entry to Great Britain are issued to intending Commonwealth immigrants who are seeking work but do not come within the special categories of having a specified job arranged or a special skill and how this total is being calculated.

Mr. Hare: At the moment, employment vouchers are being issued without restriction to Commonwealth immigrants who have no specific job or special skill. The Government are, of course, keeping this matter under very close review, in the light of the number of applications being received and 'the capacity of this country to absorb them.

Mr. Chapman: That is not satisfactory. Is the Minister not aware, for example, of the dilemma facing the Government of Jamaica, who do not know whether to encourage a large number of people to make application for these vouchers lest they end up with a large number of very disappointed and irate people who think they are on the list but are not? Will he realise that he must, at some point, give some indication of the numbers involved so that Commonwealth Governments will know what to advise their people?

Mr. Hare: Again, I think the tendency of hon. Members is to try to lay down at this stage rigid rules and principles which we are not in a position to do. It would be inadvisable, in fairness not only to the Governments but to the peoples of the territories concerned, for us to make judgments now. There can be no actual pressing need to do so until we have gained the experience we will get from the number of applications we shall receive in the coming months.

Mr. Ronald Bell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell).

Mr. Fell: I am sorry, because I rather hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) had been called. Has my right hon. Friend worked out what effect the regrettable possibility of our joining the Common Market would have on the number of people from the Commonwealth he would be able to allow to enter this country?

Mr. Hare: That is a hypothetical question. I should be delighted if my hon. Friend would care to put down a question on that subject, although I do not think it would be very easy to give him an answer.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. Friend remember that the main purpose of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was to restrict this immigration and not to stimulate recruiting in the overseas territories to which it refers? Will he also bear in mind the fact that there are some people who would be very glad to see the administration of the Act breaking down through intensive recruitment overseas?

Mr. Hare: I do not see any danger of the latter event happening. I have noted the views that have been expressed by hon. Members on this matter.

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of Commonwealth immigrants unemployed in Great Britain at 30th June, 1962, or the latest available date.

Mr. Hare: There were 34,255 on 18th June.

Mr. Pannell: In view of these continuing high numbers, does not my right hon. Friend consider that it is quite wrong to issue labour permits for unskilled labour before the unskilled labour at present unemployed in this country has been absorbed?

Mr. Hare: These figures are high, but considering the large number of additional Commonwealth immigrants who came in, so to speak, in order to be here before the Act was implemented, it is interesting to note that the number of unemployed dropped by about 550 in June as compared with May. I have told the House, both today and in the

debate, that we have to watch this with the greatest possible care. We must consider the employment prospects and other social conditions which will enable us to absorb these people in a way which will be reasonable to them as newcomers to this country. At the same time we must not place too great a strain on our social services here.

Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the complaints that have just been made on behalf of Scotland and the fears of increased unemployment? Will he also bear in mind the complaints that have been voiced about the fears of the north-east of England and Merseyside? Does he not think that it is unwise to allow more and more unskilled people to come in when so many of our own people are in fear of losing their jobs?

Mr. Hare: I can only repeat what I have said. Of course, we all must have regard to the number of Commonwealth immigrants unemployed and the employment prospects in this country. I made it clear during the passage of the Act that we are not prepared to cut off immigration until all those unemployed are at work.

Motor Industry (Strikes)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Labour how much time has been lost in the motor industry through strike action, both official and unofficial, in the last year; what has been the effect of these interruptions on the cost of production; and what steps he is taking in conjunction with employers and trade unionists to produce greater stability in labour relations within the industry.

Mr. Hare: In the year ended 31st May, 1962, 750,000 working days were lost in the motor industry through industrial disputes. I must point out that about half were the result of the two national one-day official stoppages in engineering. Figures are not available to show the effect of these stoppages on production costs. A number of steps have been taken by the industry to improve relations following my discussions last year with leading employers and trade unionists. I propose to have a further meeting later this year to review the position.

Mr. Edelman: Do not the figures show that there remains a serious problem of stoppages in the motor industry which the mutual expression of good will between employers and trade unions will not adequately dispel? Is not a deep-seated reason for these strikes in the motor industry the fear of redundancy, which becomes aggravated as winter approaches? In those circumstances, will the Minister take some statutory power in order to try to present to the industry a pattern of terminal payments for workers liable to become redundant?

Mr. Hare: I share the hon. Member's disappointment that there were so many unofficial strikes, but since we had these talks the employers and unions have kept strictly to agreed procedures and to agreements. The unofficial strikes which have taken place have gained no unofficial striker anything but have imposed great hardship on his fellow workers and damage to the prospects of the firms concerned. This factor must be kept clearly in mind. There is a difference here from what has happened before. I think the hon. Member knows my feelings about the need for employers to plan very carefully any redundancy they may have in mind and to give plenty of notice of it. I think he knows my general views but in particular I should like to see all workers in industry given greater security than they have at present.

Mr. Prentice: At the meeting last December, to which the Minister referred, the employers said that they were taking new steps to improve communications in the industry and were increasing personnel departments, including training of supervisors and so on. Can he say anything about the success of those proposals?

Mr. Hare: A great deal has happened. A number of firms have strengthened their personnel requirements and got down to the job of improving their systems of communications. As the hon. Member knows, better arrangements are being made and are in operation for the training of supervisors and others concerned in management. I am glad to say that the training of shop stewards is also being developed.

Industrial Disputes

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Minister of Labour whether the figures published in the Ministry of Labour Gazettefor stoppages of work due to industrial disputes in 1961 include days lost through unofficial as well as official strikes; and whether he will name the three industries which lost most days per 1,000 employees through unofficial strikes in 1961, and give the number of days lost per 1,000 employees in each case.

Mr. Hare: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes". There are difficulties in defining and classifying strikes as official and unofficial. The three industries which lost most days per 1,000 employees through strikes not stated to be official were coal-mining, the docks and the motor industry. It is estimated that the number of days lost per 1,000 employees in these industries fell within the ranges 1,000–1,500. 500–1,000 and 500–1,000, respectively.

Sir Richard Glyn: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether it is true that the greater number of these unofficial strikes are also unconstitutional in the sense that they are in breach of agreed disputes procedure? Do the figures he has given include men thrown out of work who were not actually on strike but were put out of work as a result of dislocation in production following unofficial strikes? Is it possible for consultation with the trade union leaders to stop this happening?

Mr. Hare: These figures do not include those thrown out of work because of the action of unofficial strikers. In the last few years, I think there has been a stronger recognition on both sides of industry of the damage which is done in this way. I was glad to notice the speech made by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) on this subject the other day.

Redundant Workers (Severance Payments)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour if the will introduce legislation so to amend the Wages Councils Act, 1959, as to make provision for fixing minimum severance payments for workers who become redundant.

Mr. Hare: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to a Question on 21st May, it is my policy to encourage industry to make proper arrangements for dealing with the problem of redundancy. Considerable progress is being made on a voluntary basis, but I will, however, bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion in the light of developments in industry generally and the special position of industries covered by wages councils.

Mr. Prentice: The Minister referred to "considerable progress". Would he agree that something less than 5 million workers are at the moment covered by arrangements of this sort and that progress is far too slow? Does he think the type of suggestion made in the Question would give a boost to progress in this field?

Mr. Hare: We want to treat this on the broad pattern of industry generally. It is true, as the hon. Member said, that under 5 million workers are covered, but it is equally true that most of them are covered by the very progressive policies pursued by employers within the last few years.

Sick Leave With Pay

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken in his Department to promote wider arrangements for sick leave with pay; and whether he will introduce legislation to make the necessary amendments to the Wages Councils Act, 1959, so that wages councils may recommend minimum conditions for sick leave with pay.

Mr. Hare: The introduction of arrangements for sick leave with pay is a matter for employers, after discussion, where appropriate, with employees or their representatives. My officers give advice and information on sick pay arrangements to interested firms. I am advised that the Wages Councils Act, 1959, does not debar wages councils from proposing that, where the contract of employment continues during sickness, minimum payments should be made in respect of the period of absence due to sickness.

Mr. Prentice: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation on the latter point. Would he therefore take steps

to encourage wages councils to help to extend sick leave with pay? Is this not a case where some sort of push by the Government would help the schemes to spread? Will he keep in touch with the survey which the T. U. C. is conducting at the moment among unions in connection with proposals for sick leave with pay?

Mr. Hare: I do not think I can prejudge particular proposals until I have considered them in detail. I would certainly give consideration to sick leave payments proposals provided they were within the powers of wages councils. I would not feel inhibited in this respect as was the last Minister of Labour in the Labour Government who turned down such a suggestion and referred back the sick pay proposals to the council concerned.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does the Minister realise that these 5 million workers are the lowest paid in the country? If they have no sick pay they have no resources to fall back on, because they have not been able to save anything out of the miserly wages they receive. The proposal is being made so that they should not suffer undue hardship.

Mr. Hare: I think I have cleared the atmosphere by saying that I am going a great deal further than did the Minister of Labour in 1951 when he referred back the proposals to the wages council concerned. I hope that what I have said will be noted by everyone concerned.

Firm, Birmingham

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the decision of Messrs. Bellis and Morcom, Ledsam Street, Ladywood, Birmingham, to discharge a large number of employees in the near future; what notice he has received of this decision; how many employees are involved; and what arrangements he is making to provide alternative work for those discharged.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Alan Green): The Department was informed by the firm on 14th June that 400 workers were to be discharged on 6th July; those who needed assistance in finding alternative


work were registered in advance of their discharge and every effort is being made to help them.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that although this firm has made a loss in three successive years it was able to give its workers only two or three weeks' notice before discharging 430 workers a large number of whom have given over thirty years service, and a number over forty years, without a single penny compensation being paid to them? Is this fair? Could not the Ministry safeguard workers from this kind of thing?

Mr. Green: The Department has no legal powers to do what the hon. Member has suggested. I understand that the difficulty is because of the firm's financial position. I am aware that compensation has not been offered, and I gather that the redundancy is the result of a real decline in orders for the firm's products.

Mr. Cleaver: Can my hon. Friend say whether the firm has a pensions scheme or not?

Mr. Green: Not without notice.

Bishop Auckland

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour how many men are unemployed in the Bishop Auckland travel to work area; how many of these are classified as being in the construction industry; how many are in mining; and how many in transport.

Mr. Green: 1,857 on 18th June, of whom 434 were last employed in construction, 362 in coal-mining and 73 in transport and communication.

Mr. Boyden: Is it not very serious indeed, especially at this time of the year, to have nearly 500 men unemployed in the construction industry? Has the Minister made any representations to his Cabinet colleagues that there ought to be an acceleration of public building of schools, houses, hospitals and so on to absorb this serious unemployment?

Mr. Green: We are, of course, deeply concerned about the problems in the area, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. So concerned are we that it is scheduled as a development

district, and we hope very much that this will attract new growing enterprises to the area in time. There are 960 jobs which are expected to arise from new buildings now. The hon. Gentleman—he mentioned hospitals—will also be aware of, for example, the Hospital Plan which my night hon. Friend the Minister of Health is introducing.

Mr. Boyden: But that hardly touches the problem of the area. There is an enormous programme of slum clearance there. Why does not the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend make serious representations to the Minister of Housing and Local Government to provide more money for this aspect of the problem?

Mr. Green: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says. All I am trying to tell him——

Mr. Willis: Do something.

Mr. Green: —is that we are doing something. I am sorry that these things take a little time to mature.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour what is his estimate of the total migration from County Durham in the first six months of 1962; and what amount of this migration was from the Bishop Auckland travel to work area.

Mr. Green: I regret that this information is not available in this form.

Mr. Boyden: Will the hon. Gentleman keen an eye on this set of figures, because if the migration is still running at the rate shown by the Registrar-General—about 600 a year—from south-west Durham, surely this aggravates the situation referred to in Question No. 9?

Mr. Green: What we do know—I assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep a very close watch on it—is the net loss by migration from the northern region. The figures are collected regionally, and I suggest that it makes more sense to continue to do that, because there is a substantial amount of movement within the region which would have to be discounted if we collected figures within region's.

Mr. Ainsley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the area there are 2,500 juveniles unemployed? What does the


Board of Trade, which has scheduled the area under the Local Employment Act, intend to do for these young people?

Mr. Green: There is, of course, an obvious connection between the opportunities for young people and the general employment prospects in any one area. I accept that. [Laughter.] I would not have thought it was a laughing matter. It is for this reason that so much of the County of Durham—rather more than half—can now have help under the Local Employment Act, and there are already certain fruits from that. I am certainly not detracting in any way from the seriousness of the situation there, but certain fruits are already apparent in the shape of new buildings and other developments which have already been notified to the Board of Trade. I hope that these developments will continue and prosper.

Wages (Payment by Cheque)

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now name a day authorising the payment of wages by cheque; and if he will make a statement on the negotiations between his Department and the banks and the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Hare: I am unable yet to fix an appointed day because I am still awaiting the comments of some of the many interested organisations whose views I have invited. However, I have been promised the outstanding replies within the next few weeks.

Mr. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend write to the interests concerned pointing out that it has taken a very long time to reach finality on this matter and that the advantages to the country are such that they really ought to agree among themselves to enable him to make a decision as soon as possible?

Mr. Hare: I have already taken the advice of my hon. Friend and made clear my own views about the length of the delay.

Mr. Prentice: Has the right hon. Gentleman received the views of the National Union of Bank Employees? Will he bear in mind that my hon. Friends and I think that he ought to consult direct with the union, partly because

its members will have to operate the proposal when it comes into effect and partly because it would be a good chance for him to set an example to the bank in having consultations with a bona fidetrade union?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman has skilfully introduced a red herring, but I have taken notice of what he has said.

Irvine, Kilwinning and Kilbirnie

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of registered as unemployed at the Irvine, Kilwinning, and Kilbirnie employment exchanges at the nearest convenient date; and what action he will take to reduce the number.

Mr. Green: At 18th June, 1962, 348 were registered at Irvine, 179 at Kilwinning and 235 at Kilbirnie. These numbers should be reduced as jobs in prospect mature.

Mr. Manuel: This seems like the old, old story. Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that this is a development district under the Local Employment Act? Is he also not aware that at Kilwinning there is an industrial estate which cost the Government more than £100,000 for site preparation and servicing? There has been only one factory on this estate since 1948, so will the hon. Gentleman try to advise the President of the Board of Trade to take action to build advance factories? Skilled labour is available in the neighbourhood.

Mr. Green: Regarding the last part of that question, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave an answer to the hon. Gentleman on 15th March last. It is a matter to be referred to my right hon. Friend and not to me. However, the hon. Member might like to bear in mind the fact that part of this area—and we realise its difficulties—is within daily travelling distance of an actual, as opposed to a pipeline, development at Linwood.

Mr. Manuel: That is utter nonsense.

Employment Increases

Mrs. Cullen: asked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the clothing and footwear


industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the vehicles industry in Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the paper, printing and publishing industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.

Miss Herbison: asked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the chemical and allied industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the metal manufacturing industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.

Mr. J. Robertson: asked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the building and construction industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.

Mr. Small: asked the Minister of Labour what has been the increase in the number and percentage of employees in the engineering and electrical industries of Great Britain and Scotland, respectively, since 1957.

Mr. Hare: As the reply contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
In all the industries mentioned, except for clothing and footwear, employment increased in Great Britain between 1957 and 1961; the largest increases were in engineering and electrical goods, construction, and paper, printing and publishing. Employment in clothing and footwear fell during the period.
In Scotland, the proportionate increase was slightly larger than in Great Britain in engineering and electrical Goods and in construction, but smaller in paper, printing and publishing. There were decreases in vehicles, chemicals

and allied industries, metal manufacture and clothing and footwear; in the last of these the decline was proportionately smaller than that in Great Britain.

Mrs. Cullen: Since the Minister is well aware of the serious unemployment in Scotland, does he realise that we want to know what and when he will be doing something about it so that the people of Scotland may have some confidence in him?

Mr. Hare: As the hon. Lady knows, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the President of the Board of Trade and myself are very concerned about the employment position in Scotland. I hope the hon. Lady will not be one of those who try to indicate that nothing is being done about this, but will realise just how much has been done in the last ten years to get a better balance of industry in Scotland generally. The fact is that there are now, in addition to a large number of new jobs created by the special facilities given by the Government of the day, a large number of jobs in prospect.

Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from what he has said the overall picture is very unsatisfactory? While it is true that the Government may have been doing something, is it not about time that they really woke up and did something much more effective, because the position is getting worse each year?

Mr. Hare: As I have told the hon. Lady the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen), a great deal has been done and is going to be done. I can assure the House that the Government have got the difficulties of Scotland very much in mind.

Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is because of the very deep concern felt by my hon. Friends about the position in Scotland that this series of Questions appears on the Order Paper? The right hon. Gentleman must surely appreciate that his Local Employment Act is not meeting this case. Will he take steps to set up industries in those areas suffering from continual unemployment?

Mr. Hare: One should not minimise what the Local Employment Act has done, for I think that it has done a great deal. The hon. Member says that


it has not done enough. These are all problems which the Government are considering, and I think that in these matters, although we want more to be done, it is a great mistake to minimise what has been done. This is a tendency I have noticed in the remarks of some of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent Scottish seats.

Mr. W. Baxter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will note with some concern the increasing unemployment in the Scottish paper industry? Is there any possibility that the reduction in the tariff on paper imports under the E. F. T. A. Agreement may have had an effect on the number of people employed in the paper industry? If the E. F. T. A. Agreement is responsible for this, does not the Minister realise that the movement of trade with the Six may mean that the paper industry of Scotland and of Britain may be destroyed entirely? I would like to hear the right hon. Gentleman's observations on whether or not the E. F. T. A. Agreement has played any part in the contraction of employment in this industry.

CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT IN CERTAIN INDUSTRIES IN GREAT BRITAIN AND SCOTLAND (1957–61)


—
Change in number of employees (Thousands)
Percentage change


1957–59 (a)
1959–61 (b)
1957–59 (a)
1959–61 (b)


Great Britain
Scotland
Great Britain
Scotland
Great Britain
Scotland
Great Britain
Scotland


Clothing and footwear
-38.·6
-1·0
+23·1
+0·7
-6·1
-2·8
+4·2
+2·4


Vehicles
+2·3
-4·4
+30·8
-4·1
+0·3
-9·9
+3·6
-10·0


Paper, printing and publishing
+6·3
-0·6
+43·8
+2·7
+1·1
-1·1
+7·7
+4·9


Chemical and allied industries
+6·0
-2·6
+14·1
+1·6
+1·1
-6·6
+2·7
+4·6


Metal manufacture
-26·7
-8·2
+59·6
+2·9
-4·6
-13·3
+10·4
+5·4


Construction
-13·9
-9·5
+97·1
+18·9
-1·0
-5·8
+7·0
+12·6


Engineering and electrical goods
+2·0
-4·3
+213·2
+21·8
+0·1
-3·0
+11·2
+15·2


TOTAL
-62·6
-30·6
+481·7
+44·5
-1·0
-5·7
+7·6
+8·8


(a) Figures based on the 1948 Standard Industrial Classification except that:—


(i) "vehicles" excludes "motor repairers and garages";


(ii) "engineering and electrical goods" excludes "shipbuilding and ship-repairing" and "marine engineering".


These omissions are in line with the 1958 Standard Industrial Classification.


(b) Figure based on the 1958 Standard Industrial Classification.

Factory, Woodley

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he is making to deal with the problems

Mr. Hare: I have no information on that, but I do not believe for a second that our paper industry would not be fully competitive with the countries of the Six if we joined the Common Market. I have every reason to think that they would, indeed, be well capable of competing. Taking the argument, which I believe to be true, that if we joined the Common Market there would be considerable trading facilities, then that would be to the advantage of a great manufacturing country like Scotland.

Mr. Baxter: Then why has it been necessary to keep in operation a tariff of 16⅔ per cent. on the importation of paper? Why is it believed that that tariff is necessary if, by wiping it out, the British industry could compete in the Common Market countries?

Mr. Hay: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that our industry is quite incapable of working without a large measure of protection because, if it were so, we should not be able to earn our living.

Following are the figures:

arising from the forthcoming closure of the Handley-Page factory at Woodley.

Mr. Green: Our local officers are today beginning to register workpeople at


the factory in advance of their discharge, and should have little difficulty in finding alternative employment for most of them.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Will my hon. Friend instruct his local officers to have particular regard to the problems of the older men—those of 55 years and upwards—who, even in an area with mercifully high employment, are likely to find it most difficult to find another place?

Mr. Green: I accept that.

Mr. Emery: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Reading Employment Exchange has kept in touch with the movement, because many of these men at Woodley live in Reading; and will all assistance be given by that exchange to deal with these redundancies?

Mr. Green: I take my hon. Friend's point. Since unemployment in the Reading area is about 1 per cent. we do not anticipate that we shall have too much trouble there.

Apprentices

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Labour how many apprentices have been made redundant during each of the last three years; and what action is taken to ensure that they can complete their apprenticeship.

Mr. Hare: When such cases occur, the employment exchange and the Youth Employment Service co-operate with the interested parties to place the apprentice with another employer with whom he can complete his indentures. Statistics are not kept, but very few cases of difficulty are reported to my Department.

Mr. Emery: Can my right hon. Friend make known the procedure for this exchange of apprenticeship in the Reading area because, in the lay-off referred to in the previous Question, a number of apprentices are affected and it is essential that they should be given every opportunity to complete their apprenticeships with other indentures?

Mr. Hare: I shall certainly see that that is done; and, in particular, that the youth employment officer is made

aware of the point my hon. Friend has just made.

Cash Register Industry, Dundee

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Minister of Labour what notification he has received of short-time working in the cash register industry in Dundee; how many people are affected; and if he will give details of their entitlement to unemployment benefit.

Mr. Green: I understand that from 6th July, 3,300 workers will lose one day's work a week. Subject to the normal rules, they will be entitled to unemployment benefit for any day on which work and earnings are lost.

Mr. Thomson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he aware that this short-time working is causing considerable hardship, particularly at the holiday period? Is he aware that anomalies appear to have arisen in the, payment of unemployment benefit to those working on short time? Will he instruct his officers in Dundee to do everything possible to see that the benefit is paid to as many as possible?

Mr. Green: I am sure that that will be done. I did speak of the normal rules, and I am quite sure that those will be promptly and punctually operated.

Sir J. Duncan: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the reason for the short-time working is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still thinking of going over to decimal currency; and that nobody will buy these cash registers if they think that we shall not stay on sterling? Will my hon. Friend ask the Chancellor to make up his mind quickly?

Mr. Green: I do not doubt that that is a factor, but I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish a large general problem to be resolved by reference to one particular problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA

Aaron Diboku

Mr. Brockway: asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has made to the Government of the Republic of South Africa regarding the


case of Aaron Diboku, a citizen of Bechuanaland, who was chained at night by his South African employer and escaped home to Bechuanaland with an 8 ft. chain, attached to an 8 lb. 11 inch metal ring, padlocked to his left ankle.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): Her Majesty's Ambassador has drawn the attention of the South African Government to the case. A South African named Willcox had already been convicted by a Bechuanaland court of manstealing for the removal of Dikobu from the Protectorate. Her Majesty's Ambassador has suggested that the South African Authorities should consider the possibility of further prosecution for any offence committed in South Africa.

Mr. Brockway: I welcome what has been done, but is it not a scandal that a British citizen and subject should be chained down by his employer in this way and, when he escapes, has to escape with an 8 ft. chain attached to his ankle, as well as a large metal ring. If that had been in a Communist country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—the very strongest protest would have been made by the Government. Surely, the least that can be asked is that general compensation should be paid to this man for the infamies committed on him.

Mr. Godber: Of course, this is a thoroughly deplorable case, and I agree with the hon. Member entirely on that. The facts arc that the man concerned has been apprehended, the case has been heard, and. he has been convicted on the charge.

Mr. H. Wilson: Do not these sound mealy-mouthed words— "drawing the attention of the Government" and "asking them to consider the possibility of further prosecution", seeing that both sides of the House made very strong representations when British subjects were being held prisoner in Laos only a week or two ago? Cannot we expect the same toughness from the Government towards the South African Government over this treatment of a British subject?

Mr. Godber: There is nothing whatever mealy-mouthed about it at all, and I reject the words. This was a case in which a private individual took the

action, not a Government—a very important distinction. The South African authorities did co-operate in the apprehension of the man, and in bringing him to justice.

Commonwealth Preferences

Mr. Brockway: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will introduce legislation to amend the South Africa Act with the object of withdrawing the economic privileges allowed to South Africa; and if he will notify the Government of the Republic of South Africa of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this respect.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the introduction of the Sabotage Act by the Republic, which is about the crowning of the Nazi system in that territory, why should we give Imperial preferences, subsidise sugar and enter into a defence agreement with a country which is now obvious to the world as a Nazi Power?

Mr. Heath: It was only a short time ago that we had long and detailed discussion about the South Africa Act. I fully recognise the hon. Gentleman's point about the introduction of the Sabotage Act, but we cannot at this stage change an Act that we so recently passed.

Mr. Mayhew: Does an employer who chains his employee enjoy the benefits of Imperial preference?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman himself took part in the discussion we had about that when we thrashed out the whole question of the political policy of South Africa, and its relationship to the Act we then passed, which included trade matters.

Mr. Tiley: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those whom many of us represent do not wish South Africa to stop buying our textiles; that because South Africa is buying our textiles the whole of my city is fully employed, including 30,000 coloured immigrants?

Miss Lee: Does the Lord Privy Seal's reply in regard to the debate we had in this House mean that nothing but a change in the vote of the House will change his attitude on South African preference? If so, does it not mean that


we shall have to wait for a General Election and a change of Government?

Mr. Heath: What I was meaning was that we devoted a great deal of time to the South Africa Act, which has so recently been passed. Hon. Members on all sides took part in those debates, in which we examined very thoroughly the relationship between the political policy of South Africa and any economic and other arrangements we made. We came to a decision and it is much too early to consider changing it.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Have not the developments that have taken place since the South African Act was passed, including the passing of the Sabotage Act, made a new case for reconsideration of the South Africa Act, greatly reinforcing the arguments we advanced from this side?

Mr. Heath: In those debates, I expressed Her Majesty's Government's view about South African racial policy. That was an aspect of those debates, but we reached a decision on the South Africa Measure in those circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — SLAVERY

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Lord Privy Seal if, having regard to the increase of slavery and the slave trade consequent upon decolonisation by European powers, he will move in the United Nations General Assembly for a Committee on Slavery.?

Mr. Godber: The first step must be to persuade those members of the United Nations which have not yet done so to accede to the International Convention of 1926 and the Supplementary Convention of 1956 and to co-operate in carrying out their terms. Her Majesty's Government have taken initiatives in this sense at earlier sessions of the Economic and Social Council, and it is our intention to take a further such initiative at the current session.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will Her Majesty's Government, whose record in this matter is very good, expose the hypocrisy of those member States which not only have not ratified the Slavery Conventions but tolerate or even uphold slavery and the slave trade in their territories and yet presume to sit in

judgment upon Britain and Southern Rhodesia and other colonial Powers which have suppressed slavery and the slave trade within their territories?

Mr. Godber: Certainly, Her Majesty's Government have taken a lead in this matter and intend to continue to do so. Concerning other territories, we are seeking to get them to accede to this. There are Questions with regard to Southern Rhodesia on the Order Paper. I should like to reserve comments on them until they arise.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I thank the Minister for saying that the Government will take further initiative about this very important matter. Is it not a fact that the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations regularly deals with the question of slavery?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. I think that the Slavery Convention is probably the most useful way to bring pressure on more of these States to join the Convention. While I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I think that this is the best way to move forward.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) if he will make a statement on the position now reached in the negotiations on Great Britain's entry into the Common Market with regard to safeguards for Commonwealth exports of produce and manufactured goods; and what representations he has received from the Commonwealth Governments about these particular negotiations;

(2) what safeguards he is now demanding for permanent comparable outlets for temperate zone foodstuffs from the Commonwealth in the enlarged European Community in the event of Britain joining.

Mr. Heath: I have nothing to add to the statements which I made to the House on 31st May and 2nd July.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that the Commonwealth countries are very concerned indeed that Commonwealth preference on manufactured goods will end in 1970? Is it the


Minister's intention in the negotiations on temperate zone products to agree to a similar arrangement for such commodities, or is he demanding as an alternative to this that, without any shadow of doubt, the Commonwealth countries will have comparable outlets in the enlarged community to those which they now have with the United Kingdom?

Mr. Heath: I have dealt with this matter in great detail on many occasions in the House. I gave a full explanation about the proposed arrangements for manufactured products in a statement on 31st May, and it was then later discussed in debate. I also explained fully the basis on which we are negotiating for temperate foodstuffs in a statement on 2nd July. The request for comparable outlets and the arrangements which I explained to the House about the transitional period and the long-term after that are different from the arrangements for the manufactured goods.

Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon, Friend assure the House that if the legitimate objections of the Commonwealth to our joining the Common Market are upheld, he will get from the Commonwealth the same categorical promises that he demands from the other side, namely, that they will lower their tariffs against manufactured goods and take our goods into their market?

Mr. Heath: That is an entirely separate question, although I appreciate its relevance.

Mr. Healey: In view of the fact that the course of the negotiations suggest that outlets available to the Commonwealth on much of their products will depend not so much on the machinery agreed but on the prices fixed for these products in the European market, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will take no final decision on British membership of the Common Market before the prices of these products have been agreed?

Mr. Heath: The price of the products is obviously a fluctuating matter which will change from year to year. One cannot ask for an undertaking in perpetuity about prices of agricultural products in the Common Market.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wall.

Mr. Stonehouse: Can we pursue this question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: We must go on to the next Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — U. S. S. R. AND DENMARK (FISHERY LIMITS)

Mr. Wall: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement about the progess of negotiations with the Soviet and the Danish Governments on fisheries limits.

Mr. Godber: Under the Anglo-Soviet Agreement of 1956 which the Soviet Government terminated with effect from 12th March, 1962, British vessels had the right to fish in two areas off the Soviet coast, one to the west and one to the east of Cape Kanin. The main value to us lay in the western area, where there was a small but useful plaice fishery. Discussions have been held in Moscow, but I regret that the Soviet authorities were only willing to consider a concession for a year at a time and only in the eastern area. Since this would not have provided a worthwhile basis for agreement, these discussions have ended and no further talks have been arranged.

As regards Denmark, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 2nd May.

Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend say when he expects to reach a conclusion on negotiations about the Faroes with the Danish Government, or are we to expect that neither Government will enter into an agreement until a decision has been made on entry into the European Economic Community?

Mr. Godber: I do not think that it necessarily hinges on that. The position is that we handed an aide memoireto the Danes on 17th April and their Government have indicated that they are considering our views, and we hope to hear further from them.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Can my hon. Friend say whether this aide memoire asked for a continuation of the six-mile limit?

Mr. Godber: I do not think that I can elaborate on the Answer I have given at the moment. We must await a reply from the Danes before I can give any further information about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (SOUTHERN RHODESIA)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will instruct his representative at the United Nations to propose that the recent General Assembly resolution on the constitutional problem in Southern Rhodesia be referred to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on its legality.

Mr. Godber: No, Sir. As at present advised, I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served in asking the General Assembly or the Security Council to seek an advisory opinion or that there is any prospect that either body would request an opinion if asked to do so.

Mr. Henderson: How do the Government justify their claim that this resolution of the General Assembly is ultra vireson the ground that it is within the provisions of Article 2 (7), narnely, the domestic jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government, when at the same time they state that they have no power to interfere with the constitutional development of Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Godber: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that we have always taken this position in regard to Southern Rhodesia, a position that any intervention would in fact be ultra vireson the ground that Southern Rhodesia is not a State represented at the United Nations, and that such representations as take place in regard to it take place through the United Kingdom Government. We have taken the view that any intervention in regard to Southern Rhodesia is ultra vires.This position was made quite clear by our representative, Sir Patrick Dean, and I stand on that position.

Mr. Healey: Does it not appear hypo, critical and slightly contradictory for the Government to maintain when they are asked to improve the nature of the Southern Rhodesian constitution that for all intents and purposes this territory is self-governing and then to deny

the same fact when the question is raised in the United Nations, and will not the Government when they refuse to have the United Nations discuss this matter take some initiative to change the constitution in Southern Rhodesia so as to give the Africans fairer representation?

Mr. Godber: I have nothing to add with regard to the constitution of Southern Rhodesia. The position which I have made clear is that we accept responsibility for representations in relation to Southern Rhodesia at the United Nations. We represent their position there and it is on that basis that we rest ourselves on Article 2 (7) of the Charter.

Mr. P. Williams: Will my hon. Friend recognise that a large body of opinion regards the influence of the United Nations in this as being thoroughly mischievous, and will he acknowledge the fact that there has been greater stability and sense of purpose in British affairs in Africa in the last few months?

Mr. Godber: I would deplore the fact that this resolution has been tabled and passed. Our position has been made clear, that we do not accept this resolution and we believe that Britain has every right to be proud of her record in this territory.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Are the Government not saying about Southern Rhodesia what they said about Cyprus, and which they had to abandon? if we deny that the resolution of the Assembly is legal, ought we not to go to the International Court to test that view?

Mr. Godber: The provision for going to the International Court for an advisory opinion is only open to an organ of the United Nations itself. We are not in a position to take a case to the International Court. If the General Assembly or the Security Council are willing that that should be done, it would be a different matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman ask them?

Mr. Godber: I indicated in my first reply that there seems to be no hope that either body will consider it.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is that a reason for not asking them?

THE SCOTTISH ECONOMY

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Scottish economy.
The Scottish Division of the National Coal Board is today making public a review of the prospects of Scottish collieries up to 1966, which they are discussing with the trade unions. It shows that a substantial number of Scottish collieries have good prospects and will increase their manpower, that others will before long exhaust their reserves of coal and will have to close down by 1966 on that account, and that there is a third group of collieries among which many have fallen short of paying their way which have a doubtful future.
The net effect is likely to be a continued fall in coal mining employment in Scotland over that period. But because large numbers leave the industry each year on retirement and for other reasons, the number of men actually displaced from the industry will be much less than the total fall in employment.
In these circumstances, the House will wish to know what immediate steps the Government are taking in relation to this situation; and in relation to its continuing policy of encouraging the development of new and growth industries in Scotland.
For the men who may be displaced, the first endeavour of the National Coal Board will be to offer another job within travelling distance of their homes. The Board has a very good record in this respect; all but a small number of the men affected by closures in Scotland last year were placed in fresh employment within the period during which the Board pays redundancy compensation. The Board's allowances to transferred men have recently been improved and will aid those who move their homes.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will ensure close co-operation between his local officers and the collieries over the finding of new jobs for those displaced. As I have explained, the National Coal Board expects to be able to offer the majority of them jobs in other pits. In some cases, however, the right course may be to offer a man training in another trade, and my right

hon. Friend proposes to expand the resources of the Government training scheme for this purpose. He will consult the unions in these trades, to secure their co-operation. It is the intention to increase the training allowances and the lodging allowances for those who leave home to take up work elsewhere.
As regards new industrial employment, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has already announced that the site of the Donibristle R.N. Air Station, in Fife, will be developed as an industrial estate and it has been decided to proceed at once with the conversion of the big engineering shop into a factory for industrial use.
The Government have also decided to acquire a further five sites suitable for future industrial development in various parts of Scotland, and, in addition, to build a number of advance factories.
As already announced, assistance under the Local Employment Act is being resumed for the Bathgate area, which includes the new town of Livingston as well as other districts where large overspill housing developments are under construction. This area is already providing a new growth point in the Scottish economy.
Some movement of workers out of industries which are contracting into those which are expanding is an essential element in economic growth and the higher living standards which that will bring, and this is particularly important for Scotland. The Government's determination is to foster this economic growth and, at the same time, by looking ahead, to do all they can to meet the human, social and industrial difficulties which inevitably go along with economic change and fresh development.

Mr. Hoy: The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised when I say that the statement he has just made will fill Scotland with great dismay. All the verbiage in which he has wrapped it up only seeks to hide—and this is a fact that he has carefully excluded from his statement—the number of pits that are to be closed as a result of this action and the number of men who will lose their employment.
How many pits will it be safe to assume will have to be closed in Scotland? Might it be as many as 60, and


will it involve the loss of employment for 20,000 miners in Scotland? Whatever else the right hon. Gentleman might say, does he not realise that whether these miners get jobs either in other mines—and I do not know where they will be able to get them—or anywhere else, this will mean a loss of a further 20,000 jobs in Scotland?
Coming on top of the closure of the 16 pits which has already been announced, there is the close-down of the shale oil industry in Scotland and the closure of the North British Locomotive Company's factory, with consequent cuts in railway employment. This really fills Scotland with dismay. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will convey no hope to the people of Scotland that the Government are seriously tackling the situation?
We want to know the pits which are involved and the number of men concerned. The news about Donibristle was given some time ago. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman where the five industrial sites to which he referred are to be located, how many advance factories are to be built, and how many jobs will be provided?
Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed to make this statement, in view of the fact that he has resisted the demand from this side of the House for many years to have advance factories built to meet this situation?
In view of this unsatisfactory position in Scotland, is it not time that the Government did something or got out and let another Government deal with the situation?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. I should make it clear, first, in reply to his sweeping attack on the Government's record, that the Government have a good deal to be proud of in the work that they have done to bring new employment to Scotland in the last few years. In two years, from 1959 to 1961, there was a net gain of about 30,000 jobs in Scotland. What is more, in the years since the Local Employment Act came into operation, in 1959, £41½ million has gone to firms in Scotland, or which are coming to Scotland, as well as 29,000 jobs.
The hon. Gentleman wanted to know the number of pits which had been closed. If he had followed my statement carefully, he would understand that there was a considerable element of doubt about a substantial number of pits, which matter is being discussed between the National Coal Board and the union at the moment or is to be discussed. Some of the pits which are to be exhausted are clearly becoming visible and 8,000 men are employed in the pits which will become exhausted over the period in question. As for the rest of the pits, it is impossible at this moment to forecast how many jobs will disappear.
The hon. Member also asked where the sites for the advance factories will be and how many there will be. I think that it is clear that it would be extremely unwise and foolish, before the acquisition of advance sites, to inform the people who own the sites where these factories will he placed. The number of advance factories is a matter which, for the present, must remain for consideration when we see precisely the full implications of the Coal Board's statement. What I have done is to come to the House as soon as I could to explain the situation that has developed and to state broadly how we propose to deal with it.
The hon. Member mentioned the fact that hon. Members opposite have raised the question of advance factories for many years. As he knows, a number of advance factories have been built. [HON. MEMBERS: "One.1 In certain circumstances they can be useful, but they are by no means the universal panacea that some hon. Members opposite seem to think.

Mr. T. Fraser: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us why it is that the Government can never anticipate these happenings? Is he not aware that the number of jobs in Scottish mines has declined by 15,000 in the last four years? Is he not aware that even in the first half of this year the number of jobs in Scottish mines has declined from 68,000 to 64,000, a further drop of 4,000?
Is he aware that a Motion was put on the Order Paper early in the Session calling on the Government to consider the social and economic consequences of


these pit closures, some of which are inevitable—we recognise that—and to take steps to provide alternative employment? It is not good enough to say that other jobs may be found for the miners who will be displaced. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the jobs of about 78,000 miners in Fife are now in jeopardy and the jobs of a further 45,000 in Lanarkshire?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that this is not just a question of the number of miners having difficulty in finding alternative employment, but also that there are fewer jobs available to young men leaving school? Will the Government wake up to their responsibilities and make the necessary survey to ascertain what the social and economic consequences of further closures will be and take steps to delay closures until steps are taken to provide alternative employment in the area?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will appreciate, if he looks again at my opening statement, that I made it very clear that one of the inevitable consequences of all this was a net loss of jobs in Scotland. It is clear that the Government are looking forward, because this is a programme for the next four or five years. We are doing precisely what the hon. Member asks that we should do. We are trying to see in advance what will happen and to make adjustments in our economy well in advance where we know of closures and of possible loss of employment.
The Government have made it cleat that we fully realise the grave nature of what is happening and are doing our best to take steps to meet the situation. The hon. Member must make up his mind whether he considers that industry should be directed to move, because I do not think that that is the policy of his party and I do not see how it is practicable in a free society.

Mr. Grimond: The Secretary of State speaks of growth in the Scottish economy.

Mr. Ross: Where?

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that growth is just what has been so gravely lacking in the

Scottish economy for so long and that what will worry many people about his statement is that all these measures have been tried before and have failed to give us the results we want?
Has the right hon. Gentleman considered some of the other suggestions which have been made? Has he considered, for example, the establishment of a development board, the improvement of freight transport, the giving of fiscal advantages to industries coming to Scotland, and the moving of the headquarters of Government Departments and agencies to Scotland? On the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, there seems to be no reason why there should be success now any more than there has been in the past.

Mr. Maclay: I cannot accept for one minute that there has been no success in the past. Growth has certainly been known in the years 1959–61 when there was a net gain of 30,000 jobs in Scotland, and in a great many industries which have a real growth potential. It must not be forgotten that we have managed to get the motor car industry back to Scotland and that there has been a steady advance in a great variety of industries. What we are doing is to alter the whole basis of the Scottish economy so that it can be a growth economy. We are not bolstering up decaying industry which could not possibly be good for the future of Scotland.

Sir T. Moore: Whilst appreciating the sympathetic and helpful attitude which the Government are taking in this unhappy but unavoidable situation, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he could indicate the precise numbers in each district, for example, in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, who may be involved? Can he also say whether he is satisfied that all those who will be for the moment declared redundant will be ultimately suitably employed either in the coal industry through the retirement of older people or in other industries now forthcoming in Scotland?

Mr. Maclay: It is not practicable, for the reasons I have indicated, to give details pit by pit or area by area because, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, there is still a considerable element of uncertainty about which pits will close


and which will not close. As soon as we have more positive information we can act in the areas which are particularly concerned.
As for the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, every effort will be made to see that employment opportunities which are being lost by the closure of pits will be made good in one way or another, but I cannot commit myself positively to say how quickly that can happen, because in a free society we must encourage industry to come by various devices. These have been extremely successful over a period, though I agree that progress this year, as in many other countries, has not been fast because industry is not to anything like the same degree on the move as it was before.

Mr. Woodburn: While we appreciate any jobs that come to Scotland, may I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it has been obvious to everyone for twenty or thirty years that the economy of Scotland is changing, that its old economic life is ebbing away and that all the little jobs that have come to Scotland have not done anything to solve the fundamental question of what will be the future economic pattern in Scotland?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what dismays people is that the Government are trying to plug up little holes here and there while the whole thing is flooding away and the population and industry are draining away to other countries? Is he aware that Scotland will perish unless the Government get down to economic planning?

Mr. Maclay: This is just the attitude towards Scotland which is disastrous. Scotland is full of vigour and enterprise. The number of jobs created not only by the Government but by Scottish firms is very high indeed. It is difficult to assess the numbers exactly, but I am working on figures which, I hope, will give a more accurate picture. Scotland presents great opportunities to incoming industry. It is not a country which is down and out, and I object very strongly to that impression going out from the House. Scotland is a country of immense opportunities and I appeal to

every right hon. and hon. Member to help us take advantage of them.

Mr. J. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman's statement gave the number of pits closed or about to be closed, but it did not give the number which are doubtful. My information is that on top of the 27 which are 'scheduled to be closed there are 33 which are doubtful. Do I understand that the Government intend to find jobs for miners from the closed pits in the pits which are now classed as doubtful and thereby make them also uneconomic?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked him for advance factories in the Lothian area when it was de-scheduled? Is he aware that when the shale industry closed down I asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to re-schedule the area for development and he refused, and that it was only after the West Lothian by-election that the Government decided to re-schedule that area?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that within the next few years we shall lose 24,000 men in the coal industry in Scotland? Is he aware that that figure is not a guess? How long will the Government allow the Coal Board, which is carrying out 'their instructions, to run down the coal industry in Scotland? Is he aware that for eighteen months I have had reason to believe that the Board is prepared to write us off as a coat producing area?

Several Hon: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: I beg to remind hon. Members that we cannot have these irregular debates on statements day by day and that the number of questions Which it is possible to allow on them is governed by the length of the questions Which are asked.

Mr. Maclay: I know the concern felt by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill), particularly about this area. I will not go over the points about advance factories again, but I am not able to say, and no one can say, how many of the pits in the doubtful category will be closed in the period in question.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have some sympathy with him and that the Minister who should have been making the statement today is


the Prime Minister? Is he aware that we on this side of the House consider that his right hon. Friend carries the burden of full responsibility for Government policy and that we would have had much more respect for the Secretary of State for Scotland if, before he came to the Dispatch Box to make that statement, he had tendered his resignation because of the failure of the Government properly to plan the economy of Scotland?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement that Bathgate has been re-scheduled, an area where the B. M. C. factory was established and where the motor car industry was brought into Scotland to solve our problems, shows that it has not solved the problem even there and that this is a demonstration of the Government's failure?
May I address the Leader of the House and say that instead of discussing the opening of "pubs" in Scotland for the rest of today we should discuss the closing of pits?

Mr. Maclay: I find some difficulty in finding anything to answer in what the hon. Member has said. Let him think very carefully indeed before he criticises what has happened in the Bathgate area, because that is one of the most constructive things that has happened in Scotland for a great many years.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Secretary of State began his statement by saying that the Scottish Division of the Coal Board is today to publish a review of Scottish collieries up to 1966, and the rest of his statement flowed from that. It would be very helpful to the House if we could have from the Ministry of Power an indication of the nature of the statement made by the Scottish Division of the Board in Scotland today. The House might then be in possession of the kind of facts which would enable it to consider whether or not the Government's proposals, as announced by the Secretary of State, are adequate to meet the situation.

Mr. Maclay: If I may deal with that point, one difficulty when statements are being made simultaneously to different groups of people is that it is not possible for them to be issued together at the same moment. We have been doing our

best to give the House as rapid information as we could about this situation.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Secretary of State aware that this is placing the House in an extremely difficult position? The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement, in very general terms, referred to a smilar statement made by the Scottish Division of the Coal Board containing all the facts. Surely, the Minister of Power could have made a consequential statement after that of the Secretary of State. Even at this stage, I should have thought that the Government must know the facts about this, and could have presented them to the House.

Mr. Maclay: I undertake that this information will be made available as soon as possible.

Mr. W. Hamilton: On a point of order. I do not know whether you are aware of it, Mr. Speaker, but West Fife is the hardest hit section of Scotland affected by this statement. There are 4,000 jobs in West Fife which are to be lost as a result of this statement. Do you not think it unfair—I appreciate your difficulty—that hon. Members who are most adversely affected by the statement are not allowed to put questions?
That being the case—and I do not blame you in any way for that—do you not think that the House deserves the protection of the Chair to ensure that we get a debate on this statement, because it is the most damnable statement about the Scottish economy which we have heard for a very long time?

Mr. Speaker: What the Chair does need is the assistance of the House and of hon. Members in not asking long supplementary questions, because that reduces the possibility of calling hon. Members who have large constituency interests, and not raising points of order that are not points of order.
I quite understand the hon. Member's difficulty, but I hope that he and the House will understand that we cannot have these irregular debates over statements. I do not fix what the House does about its business; the House does that. We must set a limit to these questions.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the announcement by the Secretary of State for Scotland about the closure of collieries in Scotland and the failure of the Government to take urgent steps to deal with the economic and social problems which will arise.
I realise that it is difficult to justify an announcement of such a sweeping character as this within the definition of "definite", because there has been a lack of definition in what the Secretary of State said. It is a definite fact, however, that a large number of miners will be directly affected by the decision which has been announced this afternoon, and that many of these men will not be able to take employment as a consequence of the decision.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a Motion on the Order Paper for nearly seven months—indeed, nearly eight months—asking the Secretary of State or the Government to hold an inquiry into this very situation before these particular circumstances arose today. No such inquiry has been opened, and, with respect, the Adjournment of the House could provide an opportunity for the discussion of this Motion on the Order Paper at this juncture, rather than the discussion of the Scottish 'licensing law which, with respect, is relatively unimportant, compared with this vital economic statement, which affects the economic (health and well-being of Scotland.

Mr. 'Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the announcement of the Secretary of State for Scotland about the closure of collieries in Scotland and the failure of the Government to take urgent steps to deal with the economic and social problems which will arise.
I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's application. 1 do not conceive it to be within the Standing Order.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to ask leave. Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of

the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the failure of Her Majesty's Government to give the House information about pit closures in Scotland which is essential to a proper appraisal of the statement by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the failure of Her Majesty's Government to give the House information about pit closures in Scotland which is essential to a proper appraisal of the statement by the Secretary of State.
I am debarred by precedent from allowing that to be within the Standing Order. I am sorry.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. Some of us have had the opportunity of seeing privately the figures involved in these closures and the number of pits that are listed to be closed, and the further number, given by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill), that are possibly to be closed. I am positive that the Secretary of State has this information, but he has not divulged the number of pits or the number of men affected to the House. This is the basis of the Motion for the Adjournment of the House which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has now sought leave to move. If we can prove this, we ought to discuss it, because I feel that in the circumstances the Secretary of State is withholding vital information.

Mr. Speaker: That does not bring it within the Standing Order. I am sorry, but I am quite firm on my Ruling.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: May I put this point to you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of the dignities and the rights of this House? It is within the knowledge of a number of hon. Members on this side that in the Lobbies outside this Chamber, the figures which we are seeking, and which the Secretary of State says he cannot give us, are now being handed out. Is it not humiliating that the House should be in this situation? Will you


give us some advice, so that the House can be protected against this kind of behaviour on the part of the Government?

Mr. Speaker: It involves no point of order for the Chair whatsoever. There are procedures whereby some misconduct of Ministers can be made the subject of what is virtually a Parliamentary indictment, if the House chooses to resort to it. It has nothing to do with me, and I cannot make it so. I am sorry.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Committee of Supply discharged from considering the Estimates set out hereunder, and the said Estimates again referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:—

Class III, Vote 2B, Scottish Home and Health Department (Revised Estimate).

Class VI, Vote 5, General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland.—[Mr. lain Macleod.]

Orders of the Day — LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(ALTERNATIVE PERMITTED HOURS IN CERTAIN ATHLETIC CLUBS DURING WINTER.)

(1)A registered club may apply to the sheriff for any one of the following orders, that is to say—


5
(a) an order providing that during the winter period the permitted hours in the club on weekdays shall not be those set out in paragraph (a) of sub 5 section (1) of section four of this Act, but shall instead be the period between eleven in the morning and two in the afternoon and the period between four and half-past nine in the evening; or


10
(b) an order providing that during the winter period the permitted hours in the club on Sundays shall not be those set out in paragraph (b) of the said sub 10 section (1), but shall instead be the period between half-past twelve and two in the afternoon and the period between four and eight in the evening, and that for the purpose of the sale or supply of exciseable liquor for consumption off the premises there shall be no permitted hours in the club on Sundays; or


15
(c) an order which contains both the aforesaid provisions; and the sheriff shall, if in his opinion the conditions set out in the next following subsection are satisfied, make the order applied for.



(2) The conditions referred to in the foregoing subsection are—


20
(a) that the premises of the club are structurally adapted and bona fide used, or intended to be used, wholly or mainly for the purpose of providing facilities in connection with the carrying on by members of the club and their guests of athletic sports or athletic games;


25
(b) that one or more of such sports or games is or are usually carried on out of doors and, when so carried on, can (unless artificial lighting is used) only be carried on during the hours of daylight;


30
(c) that the said premises are regularly used, or are intended regularly to be used, during the winter period, for providing facilities in connection with the carrying on by members of the club and their guests, during the hours of daylight, of such a sport or game as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph;


35
(d) that having regard to the time at which the said sport or game is usually carried on by members of the club and their guests, the permitted hours set out in paragraph (a) or (b) or paragraphs (a) and (b) (as the case may be) of subsection (1) of section four of this Act are not suitable for the supply of exciseable liquor in the said premises to persons who participate in that sport or game.


40
(3) On an application for an order being made under subsection (1) of this section by any club the sheriff clerk shall forthwith give notice thereof to the chief constable who may, within twenty-one days of the date of the receipt by him of such notice, lodge with the sheriff clerk objections to the making of such order on the ground that one or more of the conditions set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the last foregoing subsection has not or have not been satisfied in relation to the club, and shall, on lodging any such objections, send a copy thereof to the secretary of the club; and if any such objections are lodged and not withdrawn, the sheriff


45
shall as soon as may be hear parties upon the application and objections and may order such enquiry as he thinks fit, and shall thereafter make or refuse to make the order applied for, and may award expenses against the unsuccessful party.


50
(4) An order made under this section by the sheriff in respect of any club shall expire on the date on which the certificate of registration which is in force in respect of the club expires.



(5) In this section the expression "the winter period" means the period beginning with the first day of October and ending with the thirty-first day of March.


—[Mr. Maclay.]


Brought up, and read the First time.

4.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker, there is a consequential Amendment to this Clause in Clause 5, page 7, line 16, to leave out from "or" to "six" in line 17 and to insert:
section (Alternative permitted hours in certain athletic clubs during winter) or, as the case may be".
Would it be convenient for this Amendment to be discussed at the same time as the new Clause?

Mr. Speaker: If that is the general wish of the House. I do not know whether the Opposition can help me in deciding whether that is the wish of the House.

Mr. James H. Hoy: Yes, Sir. We do not take objection to that.

Mr. Maclay: I am grateful for that agreement.
The application to clubs of the principle of standard permitted hours throughout Scotland has been one of the very difficult questions raised by the Guest Committee's recommendations. The Committee recognised this. At present, under Section 124 of the Act of 1959, clubs can fix their permitted hours to suit the wishes of their members, within certain limits—not very wide limits. Clause 4 of the Bill implements the Guest Committee's recommendation that registered clubs should have the same permitted hours on both weekdays and Sundays as licensed premises. On the whole, this provision has been welcomed and any inconvenience which may arise has been accepted as the price of the advantages of standardisation. It is the case that very few social registered clubs have objected to these proposals.
On the other hand, in the case of clubs which are primarily for some athletic sport or game, the hours at present fixed by the club within the existing statutory limits are, naturally enough, fixed as far as possible to meet the convenience of those who have been playing the game concerned. It must be accepted that to a certain extent the standard permitted hours do not fit in with the hours at which games are

played as well as do the hours at present fixed by the club. Here there is a clash between two objectives, both of which are desirable.
We are generally in favour of the standardisation of hours and standardisation has been welcomed, but in our view it would be wrong to take standardisation to such a length that in some cases the standard permitted hours blatantly did not meet the obvious needs. The Government have received, I have received as Secretary of State and many hon. Members have received, a considerable number of representations from sporting clubs about the disproportionate inconvenience which it would cause in their circumstances. The question which we have to consider is whether anything should be done to meet this difficulty and how far it is desirable or possible to go without endangering the benefits to be obtained from standardisation.
I recognised this difficulty in my speech on Second Reading, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State undertook in Committee that we should introduce a new Clause to meet it. This is the Clause. The essence of the Clause is that if, for reasons beyond the club's control, the standard permitted hours and the club's main activities do not and cannot fit in with each other, there is a special case for a departure from standardisation. This is the case with outdoor athletic clubs in winter, when the short hours of daylight prevent play during the hours which fit in with the evening period of permitted hours. The effect of the new Clause is to devise procedure whereby a club may apply to the sheriff for alternative permitted hours on week-days and Sundays, or both, during the winter months. The sheriff will be obliged to grant an order allowing this if the four conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied, and if the club is devoted to outdoor athletic activities in the winter.
Subsection (1) sets out the procedure. The clubs apply to the sheriff for an order or orders. The week-day order provides for permitted hours of 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. instead of the proposed standard hours. For Sundays, the alternative hours will be 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. The general prohibition of Sunday


off-sales is written into the provisions of such an order. A club which wants both Sunday and week-day alternative hours can have these in a single order.
The sheriff is obliged to grant an order if he is satisfied that a club meets certain conditions set out in the subsection which follows. As in the case of the club registrations, he is not given a general discretion to grant or refuse the application but he must grant it if certain matters are proved to his satisfaction. This seems to us appropriate, since the sheriff is a judge of a court of law and, unlike the licensing court, is not an arbiter of social questions.
Subsection (2) sets out the conditions which the club must meet. These are that the clubhouse must be genuinely used for facilities in connection with athletic games: that one or more of the games is outdoors and needs daylight or artificial light; that the clubhouse is used for such facilities for such a daylight game during the winter; and that the standard permitted hours are not suitable for the times at which the games are played. These are the main conditions in the subsection.
Subsection (3) provides for objection by the chief constable on the ground that any one of these conditions is not satisfied. Subsection (4) provides that the effect of the order should be coterminous with the currency of the club's certificate of registration—that is, until the annual expiry of the certificate by virtue of section 172 of the 1959 Act. Subsection (5) defines the winter period as 1st October to 31st March. This seems to be adequate to cover the period during which athletic clubs will be hampered by shortage of daylight.
The Amendment to Clause 5 provides for the extension—that is, an hour's extension to the permitted hours for drinks with meals. The Amendment alters Clause 5 so that the hour's extension is applied to the alternative permitted hours for athletic clubs.

Mr. William Ross: Mr. William Ross(Kilmarnock)
rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call some of the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). If another hon. Member wined to speak to the new Clause

before the Amendments were moved, it might be inconvenient for the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to begin moving Amendments now.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. 1 should then be precluded from speaking about the Clause as such and should be limited to a discussion on the Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Member can speak to the Question, That the Clause be read a Second time. No doubt in the course of that speech he would deal with such of his Amendments to the new Clause as have not been selected. I did not want him to preclude himself from moving an Amendment by something which he was about to say. Subject to no one else desiring to speak, I am willing to call the hon. Member for Kilmarnock at this stage, but I did not want him to be misled into a difficult situation.

Mr. Ross: Then I will move my Amendment, Mr. Speaker, if you will indicate which Amendment has been selected.

Mr. Speaker: We have first to get the Clause read a Second time before we start amending it.

Mr. Ross: In Committee, I was inclined not to vote against the Government's intention in this respect, because I thought that the least we could do was to wait to see what they said about what, on balance, was a reasonable case—that in respect of certain clubs this might well be justified from the point of view of the short daylight hours in the winter. But at that time the position was very different from what it now is. That was at a much earlier stage and it was only later that I discovered how gutless the Government are about their own proposals—and I have chosen my words carefully.
It is one thing to agree to a proposal when the Government are supposedly standing by other proposals relating to the supervision of licensed premises, albeit clubs, and quite another when, without a satisfactory explanation, the Government allow the provisions for that supervision to lapse. They cannot expect me to look with exactly the same eye as earlier on the provisions now before us.
The Government have not given any definition of an athletic club, nor the extent of such clubs. It is obvious that this revision will not apply to cricket clubs, although to meet these provisions cricket clubs could erect a practice net outside the clubhouse and play there in the winter time. But I am not satisfied that even with floodlighting such a club would come within the Clause.
However, I gather that golf clubs would be included. I have one apology to make about what I said in Committee when we discussed another plea of registered clubs and when I said that I had heard little about it. The plea about which I had heard nothing was for the sort of 'provision which we now have before us. I have had letters from at least two golf clubs, neither in my constituency, but both clubs which people from my constituency would be likely to visit—the Irvine Golf Club and Kilmarnock Brassie Club.
The Government are concerned about the hardship of golfers in the winter time who, having finished a game of golf before the hours of darkness, would be precluded by the present permitted hours provisions from getting the solace of a drink. That is to say, they would have to wait until five o'clock. One of the first arguments about this proposal was that clubs would go out of business if they did not have licences and that we had to bend every effort to ensure that they had the maximum right to purvey drink to the "drouthy gowfers".
If that is true, there is one obvious defect in the Clause, for the hours of morning will not be affected and any change which is necessary should not be made in the morning. But the Government are changing morning hours from 11 to 2.30 to 11 to 2, their only justification being to allow another half an hour in the evening drinking period. Yet that is the time when no one playing any game, golf, or anything else, will be worried about the light. Such a person would be concerned to get an extension in the earlier part of the day.
The sheriff has no discretion at all and must give this alternative permitted hour permission in respect of any club which satisfies the conditions in paragraphs (2, a), (2, b), (2, c) or (2, d). If a club

does not satisfy the conditions of paragraph (a), it should not have a licence in the first place. That paragraph is completely redundant. The other conditions are:
(b) that one or more…sports…are usually carried on…and when so carried on, can (unless artificial lighting is used) only be carried on during the hours of daylight;
(c) that the said premises are regularly used, or are intended regularly to be used "—
whatever that means—
during the winter period, for providing facilities in connection with the carrying on…
(d) that having regard to the time at which the said sport or game is usually carried on by members of the club and their guests, the permitted hours…are not suitable for the supply of exciseable liquor in the said premises to persons who participate in that sport or game.
Is it only the people who participate in the sport or game who will have the benefit of this change?

4.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant): The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant) indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: Evidently not, for the Lord Advocate shakes his head. In that case, why are those people present? Is not this provision simply window dressing?

Mr. F. J. P. Lilley: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will appreciate that there will be members of the club, who, possibly through infirmity, are no longer fit to use the privileges of the club, but who still keep their membership going. Are they not entitled to the same benefits?

Mr. Ross: But they will not be concerned with the motives which have prompted this change, because it is only the people who have been playing and who, because of the natural consequence of daylight not lasting as long in the winter as in the summer, will not be able to finish a game, or will have to finish it so early that they will have to wait an hour or an hour and a half to get a drink. That would obviously not apply to people who, because of infirmity, could not play the game anyway.
I am not at all satisfied with the wording, but my much more serious objection is that the granting of the


order by the sheriff is more or less automatic. In some cases that might be justified. If my Amendment is called—I do not know which Amendments are being selected for discussion——

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I made great efforts and I thought that the list of provisional selections had already been paraded for the hon. Member's attention.

Mr. Ross: It may have been paraded, but it has not reached me yet, Sir. The fault may well be mine, but as the parading of lists is a fairly irregular Parliamentary practice, and subject at all times to any decision by the Chair, it is not for ordinary Members to anticipate whether their Amendments will be selected.

Mr. Speaker: I desire to help the hon. Member, not to interrupt him, but I will tell him which I propose to select. They are in line 6, after the first "and", to insert "half-past"; in line 7, to leave out "half-past"; in line 29, after "daylight", to insert "during the winter period"; and in line 36, at the end to insert:
(e) that having regard the location of the premises the public interest as represented by the desirability of maintaining uniformity of permitted hours in the locality will not be undermined by the making of the order.
but none of the others. I hope that that helps the hon. Member.

Mr. Ross: I was hoping that instead of saying "none of the others", you might have said, "and in line 44", because that is consequential on the Amendment in line 36 which you have decided to call. It is to leave out "(d)" and to insert "(e)".

Mr. Speaker: I have indicated what my selection is at present. If it needs amendment because of something that happens, I will make it.

Mr. Ross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No latitude is given to the sheriff and if the applicant satisfies the tests, the granting of the order is automatic. The only person who can make an objection is the chief constable, and he can object only on the ground that a condition in (a), (b), (c) or (d) is not satisfied. He has no say about public order or the desir

ability of having such an order at all. In fact, he has no power. All that he can do is to lose money for the county, because if the sheriff turns down his objection he can be ordered to pay the costs, and presumably this would mean them being paid by the town or county council.
I am not satisfied with the new Clause in its present form. In view of what the Secretary of State for Scotland said about supervision, I do not think that he has made out a case for the new Clause. The more we depart from uniformity and the standardisation of hours of drinking, the greater is the need for police supervision. So long as I knew that there was to be adequate police supervision I was prepared to accept this change, but I am not now persuaded that it would be in the interests of Scotland to allow this new Clause to be read a Second time.

Mr. William Hannan: I, too, want to voice my opposition to this new Clause, and I do so for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in his last few sentences.
The Guest Committee, in paragraph 76, strongly recommended the standardisation of permitted hours. If we depart from the principle of uniformity, the Secretary of State for Scotland will have to deal with applications for all sorts of exceptions. Indeed, there is already on the Notice Paper a new Clause for an exception in which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) is interested, but I will not pursue that point. This is symptomatic of the trouble in which the right hon. Gentleman will find himself. He will be faced with applications to make all sorts of exceptions from the general principle.
The Guest Committee's Report says, in paragraph 76:
Almost all of the organisations from whom we have received evidence have urged on us the desirability of there being standard permitted hours throughout Scotland, that is to say of a system whereby the same permitted hours will be fixed by statute for all areas and individual licensing courts would not have power to vary them.
The Report then goes on to deal with the importance of such a decision.
What does the Secretary of State mean when he talks about athletic clubs?


There are many clubs which will use this provision to open the door a bit wider to provide drinking facilities, and, although the intention may be to include golf clubs in this provision, I want to know what it is proposed to do about other types of clubs. Certain junior and juvenile clubs have the title, "So-and-So Football and Athletic Club". There are hundreds of such clubs which may wish to join in this liberalising campaign which is being conducted throughout Scotland to provide more facilities for drinking, and this is supposed to be a progressive movement. Like golf clubs, some of them can claim that they are in need of money.
In opposing the new Clause, I want to point to some of the pitfalls with which the right hon. Gentleman may be confronted in the future. What I have said relates not only to junior and juvenile football clubs, but to senior clubs, and in his efforts to help one type of club the right hon. Gentleman may find himself faced with applications from many different types of clubs for the facilities which he proposes to grant in this new Clause. I am opposed to it because it runs counter to the recommendations of the Guest Committee that there should be standard permitted hours for drinking, and that no exceptions should be made.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock said, it is astounding that the conditions referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) should obtain in any case, and it appears from paragraph (d) that if the time of the game does not coincide with the permitted hours for drinking we have to make those hours coincide with the playing of the game. This begs the criticism of the Guest Committee, that one of the greatest criticisms of clubs is that one of the primary purposes of being registered as a club is that it exists not primarily for drinking purposes, but in this new Clause the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make it possible to make the hours of drinking coincide with the hours of the game. The whole thing is preposterous and I shall be disposed to vote against the new Clause.

Mr. William Baxter: I, too, think it desirable that there should be some uniformity in the hours during which people are permitted

to drink. We in Scotland have been plagued with this problem for many years. One licensing area permits an extra half-hour, or hour, in which to drink at night, while its neighbour does not, with the result that a great deal of trouble and inconvenience is caused to the police because people are able to go from one area to another to continue drinking.
The provisions set out in the new Clause may be slightly different, but they still represent a departure from the principle of uniformity, and the Lord Advocate seemed to imply that it was not necessary to be a member of a club to enjoy the facilities of drinking in it. Apparently somebody can call himself a member of a club and thus enjoy an extra half hour's drinking.

The Lord Advocate: When I nodded just now I was dealing with the question of whether those who participated in the game were entitled to take drink during those hours. I indicated that participation in the game was not necessary, provided the person was a member of the club. He has to be a member, unless a member stands him a drink.

Mr. Baxter: If I happen to be in a club of which the Lord Advocate is a member, and is present, and the police come in to see whether the club is complying with the regulations, all that I need do is to say, Well, Mr. Lord Advocate, I happen to be your guest", and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a reasonable man I have no doubt that he would accede to my request for a drink. It is very simple to overcome the strict letter of the law. We have a duty to see that the law is applied equally to all sections of the community, and I say that it is a bad principle to depart from uniformity in permitted drinking hours.
4.30 p.m.
I counsel the Secretary of State with all the sincerity at my command to try to maintain as far as possible the uniformity of licensed hours. I could argue the merits or demerits of permitting an extension of drinking facilities, but that is not my duty My responsibility is to urge that uniformity of treatment should be given to all people, and that it is very bad to depart from this principle of uniformity, even in what may be regarded as a small way
The Minister will be well advised to cast aside his preconceptions and revert to the idea that in all clubs and licensed premises the hours of drinking should be completely uniform. That would make things much easier not only for chief constables but also for the Minister of Transport, who deprecates the drinking of liquor when driving motor vehicles because of the numbers of deaths on the road which are caused by this practice. If persons have had a certain amount of drink and know that within a very short distance they can carry on drinking for even another half an hour many of them will be tempted to rush by car to that place, and this is likely to cause accidents.
I therefore implore the Minister to give great consideration to this matter before he departs from the principle of uniformity and of providing equal facilities for all persons.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope that the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate will explain subsection (5) of the new Clause. I should like to know why winter in Scotland is defined as beginning with 1st October and ending with 31st March. What is the precedent for this? What has happened to autumn and spring? Are we to understand that the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State has made a study of climatic or lighting conditions in Scotland? Why should winter in Scotland occupy half the year? Is there anything alcoholic in this?
Any farmer in my constituency would regard the proposition that winter begins in October and ends in March as thoroughly unsatisfactory. I should like to know why these dates have been inserted in the Clause.

The Lord Advocate: I remember the story of the American who, after spending a year in Scotland, said, "The one thing that struck me about the Scots climate was the way in which spring merged imperceptibly into winter."

Mr. Hughes: That is no explanation. If it merges so imperceptibly, why has the Lord Advocate fixed these very perceptible dates?

Mr. Hoy: In Committee, we had a considerable discussion on the subject of licensing hours for registered clubs,

especially sporting clubs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has reminded us, the plea was then made that the bar of such a club really financed it. I have never accepted that argument. It may be that the bar provides a fair supplementation of the funds of a club, but I have never regarded it as affecting a club's whole economy.
In our proceedings on the Bill we have endeavoured to keep licensing hours fairly regular throughout Scotland. One of the great complaints about Scottish licensing hours—and the same complaint has been made south of the Border—has been that the licensing hours vary from one area to another, and that people are accordingly tempted to move from one area to another. That has made it very difficult for the police to exercise supervision of licensed premises.
That argument has been widely accepted. It was because of this that the Government introduced the Bill, creating uniformity of licensing hours throughout Scotland, so that people would know what those hours were, no matter in what part of Scotland they happened to be. This would make police supervision much simpler. It is against that background that we are now considering the new Clause, which is designed to meet the request made by a certain section of the Scottish community. It has been argued that because of the sporting activities in which some persons participate the licensing hours of clubs should be altered to meet their requirements, so that they may have a drink immediately they have finished playing a game.
I doubt whether that is a strong enough argument for changing the general rule about licensing hours in Scotland. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee feel that such people should be prepared to wait from four o'clock until five o'clock, rather than expect the licensing hours to be changed by 30 minutes in order to suit their convenience. The Lord Advocate knows quite well that golfers who finish a game at four o'clock are not going to rush straight to the bar. Most of them will at least want to change, and by the time they have done so it will be nearer five


o'clock than four. I regard the case put forward on behalf of these people as being very slim. I certainly do not regard it as strong enough to warrant any alteration of the general rule.
I want to ask a question concerning the conditions which must be implemented before the granting of a licence by a sheriff. One thing that disturbs me is that the sheriff is a fairly highly placed legal dignitary. He is the equivalent to an English county court judge; in fact, he would consider himself rather higher, since his powers in court are much greater than those of a county court judge. In these circumstances, it seems odd that there should be so little freedom of choice on his part to decide whether or not he should grant a licence.
Are these provisions taken from another Act? It is strange that we should provide that if all the necessary conditions are complied with the sheriff shall have no say in the matter, and will be compelled to grant a licence. This is a fairly wide departure from the normal practice. I do not know whether it has been attempted before.
Since the new Clause will break the general licensing hours in Scotland and will confine the power of the sheriff very greatly, I think that we ought to have an explanation. If the Government cannot give a better explanation than the one they gave for the change of hours, then it will be for my hon. Friends to decide what they want to do. Whatever else happens, the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate should make a statement about the powers of the sheriff in Scotland and explain why the Government have found it necessary so to curtail them.

The Lord Advocate: I think that it will be convenient if I deal, first, with the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), because it is part of the background to the problem which we are discussing. His complaint is that the sheriff is left with no discretion. This is nothing new in our licensing law. For many years—since 1903 in regard to clubs—we have proceeded on the basis that the sheriff can take into account objections only if they come within the terms of what is now Section 174 of the 1959 Act; in other words, he is, so to speak, limited to considering those particular

matters. If no valid objection is made in relation to any of those, he has to grant the certificate. Accordingly, in saying in the new Clause that he must have regard to paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), we are keeping in line with the principle we already have.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan) spoke about clubs becoming drinking clubs. I stress that any club which applies for registration can have its registration objected to on any of the grounds set out in section 174 of the 1959 Act, and they are lettered from (a) to (s), quite a number. Accordingly, an athletic club has to get over two hurdles. First, it must qualify under Section 174. Secondly, it must qualify under the four heads of subsection (2) of the new Clause. It cannot just get in under subsection (2). It must be a bona fideclub within the meaning of section 174.
Accordingly, even though it satisfied the conditions under subsection (2) of the new Clause, if the sheriff thought that it was conducted in a disorderly manner or used mainly as a drinking club, then he could and would not merely refuse the alternative hours, but refuse registration altogether. It is a double hurdle. A club is not given a loophole to escape the existing provisions of the law.

Mr. W. Baxter: How is the sheriff to be advised about what is taking place in any club, be it an athletic club or any other? What power has the chief constable or his police officers to go into the club to see what is going on?

The Lord Advocate: I think that that takes us on to a different matter. I know that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) have, as it were, tied the power of police inspection with the provisions of this new Clause, but the point is that it is up to the club to satisfy the sheriff that the conditions prescribed in subsection (2) here are satisfied. The order can be made only if, in the sheriff's opinion,
the conditions set out in the next following subsection are satisfied".
There are two points. First, the onus is on the club to satisfy the sheriff. Secondly, the chief constable has a right to object. If he goes to the sheriff and


says that he tried to find out what was going on, that he asked politely if he could investigate and was told that lie could not, the sheriff would, in fact, be very unlikely to say that he was satisfied that these conditions were fulfilled.

Mr. W. Baxter: But once a club has satisfied the sheriff that it is a bona fide athletic club, which it can do in the first place quite simply, then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Hannan) has said, it can possibly be turned into little less than a drinking den. How is one to prove that the main purpose of the club when it was registered originally for licensing purposes has been changed if the power of inspection is curtailed?

The Lord Advocate: I think that the answer lies in subsection (4). Any order made in regard to the granting of alternative hours expires on the date when the certificate of registration expires, that is to say, annually. The registration certificate has to be renewed annually and, equally, the sheriff must be satisfied annually that the club is still an athletic club and not a drinking den.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. W. Baxter: I am sorry to trouble the Lord Advocate again, but has he or the Secretary of State any practical experience in the administration of the law relating to licensed premises? Do they recognise the difficulty in obtaining the true information which is necessary for even a licensing court to come to an unbiased and clear decision on these matters?
The matter is more difficult when it reaches the sheriff. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has any experience of these matters, he will know that, once clubs have been granted licences in the past, it is very difficult for the police to be able to report to the sheriff about what is happening in those which have become drinking dens and departed from their original purpose, and he will know how difficult it is, as a practical matter, to take away a licence once it has been granted.

The Lord Advocate: Most licensing offences are dealt with in the burgh or the J.P. court and not in the sheriff court. For that reason, I do not normally come in on the prosecution side,

so that I have no wide experience. I have appeared both for and against publicans in the course of my experience, with equal impartiality and, I think, equal lack of success. Also, I have been a member of the committee of management of a club.

Mr. W. Baxter: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman been a member of a licensing court?

The Lord Advocate: No, I have not had that misfortune, or fortune, whichever the hon. Gentleman calls it.
The operative point is this. If the sheriff is left in doubt, then he is not satisfied. If he is not satisfied, he cannot grant these alternative hours. I think that it would be undesirable, and probably out of order, if I were to attempt at this stage to go into the more general question of a club becoming a drinking den. But, undoubtedly, if the police considered that an athletic club which has got the alternative hours was turning into a drinking den, they could object, even if they did not take any proceedings beforehand, at the next renewal proceedings in order to have the extension of alternative hours refused. As I say, the onus is on the club all the way through to show that the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied.

Mr. W. Baxter: But the onus in asking the sheriff to disallow a licence previously granted on the ground that the club had not been conducted to the satisfaction of the police rests upon the police, not upon the club. The police must go to the sheriff and prove that the club has not been conducted in the manner contemplated when the licence was granted. There is here an obvious difficulty, reading further into the Bill, if the police have no right to inspect.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member is mixing up two things which I am trying to keep separate. When it comes to the registration of clubs in general, whether they be athletic, railwaymen's, working men's, educational, Conservative or Socialist the onus is on the objector to show that one of the grounds laid down in Section 174 of the 1959 Act is valid. But under this new Clause, the onus is on the club to satisfy the sheriff that the conditions are fulfilled. In one case the onus is on the objector and


under the new Clause it is on the club. This also applies to renewal because of the provisions of subsection (4) since the order lapses at the end of the year. Therefore, the club has to start again and to show that the conditions are satisfied.
I now deal with one or two matters raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. I made a note of them on my copy of the proposed new Clause.

Mr. Ross: I said that subsection (2, a) was redundant.

The Lord Advocate: I disagree. The premises have to be bona fideused for club premises, but the operative words are:
wholly or mainly for the purpose of providing facilities in connection with the carrying on by members of the club and their guests of athletic sports or athletic games.
In effect, that means that the premises have to be suitable for the carrying on of such activities by members. It applies to the ordinary golf clubhouse, football pavilion, and so on, registered as a club and used for the carrying on of outdoor sports.

Mr. Ross: The Lord Advocate will appreciate that we start with a registered club. It has already got its certificate of registration and its permitted hours. All that it is asking for is renewal. It has satisfied the sheriff in the first instance and has withstood all the possible objections. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want me to read the objections in paragraphs (a) to (s) of Section 174. One of the possible objectors in respect of any one of these things is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own Department.
I was surprised to hear how little experience his Department has in this matter, because the procurator fiscal is a possible objector. Condition (d) is that
the premises are, or the situation thereof is, not suitable or convenient for the purpose of a club.
Having cleared that hurdle, surely it is almost impossible to find any difficulty in clearing this one.

The Lord Advocate: I do not wish to go into technical details, but that just will not do. Many of the former pupil

clubs of the Scottish schools—Heriot's, Glasgow High School, Edinburgh Academicals, and so on—hold the registration certificate for the premises where games are played, but, in the main, they do not carry on athletic activities as clubs. These are carried on by the rugby club, the football club, or the cricket club. Further, it must be made clear that, although the premises of the club may be adapted for the purposes of a club, only if it is an athletic club and the premises are suitable for athletics can it get these alternative hours.
The second point of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock concerned the phrase in subsection (2, c):
or are intended regularly to be used".
I think that we thrashed this matter out in another context in Committee. The object of these words, as it is in another Clause, is to cover the case in which new premises are being built and the club wishes to know its position before it commits itself to building.

Mr. Ross: In that case, it would not come under this new Clause because it would not be a registered club.

The Lord Advocate: It may be a registered club, but it may wish to build new premises or a new pavilion and to take advantage of the new Clause.
I confirm what I have said about the final words of subsection (2, d), namely,
persons who participate in that sport or game.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether members could entertain their guests. That is so. On the other hand, a guest is not allowed to pay for his own drinks.
Generally, although uniformity is a good thing in many cases, we have this trouble, that when a person comes in after having played a game of football or golf, or whatever it may be, in the winter he is probably in by four o'clock. I do not think that the hon. Member for Leith is right in suggesting that the man will be happy to change his shoes for an hour before he has a drink. He may get into more trouble on the way home by driving off to a public house and getting "sozzled" there.

Mr. Hoy: I did not say that he would take an hour to change his shoes, but


surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not suggest that he will run up the stairs in his football strip to have a drink?

The Lord Advocate: Certainly. When I used to play rugby football, thirty-one years ago, I was kept alive in the last five minutes by the thought of having a

large shandy when I got back to the pavilion; and I did not change until I got it.

Question put,That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided:Ayes 186, Noes 43.

Division No. 243.
AYES
4.58 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gurden, Harold
Noble, Michael


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Barlow, Sir John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Batsford, Brian
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Col- Sir Harwood (Eyre)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hendry, Forbes
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Berkeley, Humphry
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Parker, John


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Hiley, Joseph
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Biffen, John
HIM, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Peart, Frederick


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Percival, Ian


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bishop, F. P.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Black, Sir Cyril
Holland, Philip
Pitt, Miss Edith


Blyton, William
Hollingworth, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Bossom, Clive
Hoosen, H. E.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hopkins, Alan
Pym, Francis


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hornby, R. P.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Box, Donald
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R, (B'pool, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Roots, William


Brooman-White, R.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Iremonger, T. L.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
James, David
Seymour, Leslie


Buck, Antony
Jennings, J. C.
Sharpies, Richard


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Shaw, M.


Burden, F. A.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Skeet, T. H. H.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp;amp; Chiswick)


Channon, H, P. G.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smithers, Peter


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kirk, Peter
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Lawson, George
Speir, Rupert


Cleaver, Leonard
Leburn, Gilmour
Stevens, Geoffrey


Collard, Richard
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cooke, Robert
Lilley, F. J. P.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry


Corfield, F. V.
Lltchfield, Capt. John
Tapsell, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Coulson, Michael
Longbottom, Charles
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Loveys, Walter H.
Temple, John M.


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lubbock, Eric
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Curran, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


d'Avigdor-Gotdsmid, Sir Henry
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;amp;N.Ayrs.)
Turner, Colin


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Donaldson, Cmdr. C E M.
MacLeod, John (ROBS &amp;amp; Cromarty)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Doughty, Charles
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vane, W. M. F.


Duncun, Sir James
Maltland, Sir John
Wade, Donald


Eccles, Rt. Hon Sir David
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Eden, John
Marshall, Douglas
Walker, Peter


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)




Emery, Peter
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon. Sir Derek


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wall, Patrick


Errington, Sir Eric
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Finlay, Graeme
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Whitelaw, William


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Fraser Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mills, Stratum
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Freeth, Denzil
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Wise, A. R.


Gilmour, Sir John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Morgan, William
Woodnutt, Mark


Gower, Raymond
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Worsley, Marcus


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Nabarro, Gerald



Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Green, Alan
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Gordon Campbell and


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Mr. Rees




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Awbery, Stan
Cliffe, Michael
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Dalyell, Tarn
Forman, j. C.




Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Hunter, A. E.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Gourlay, Harry
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Small, William


Gunter, Ray
Kenyon, Clifford
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sorensen, R. W.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Harper, Joseph
Upton, Marcus
Wilkins, W. A.


Healey, Denis
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Moyle, Arthur
woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mulley, Frederick



Hilton, A. V.
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hoy, James H.
Owen, Will
Mr. Hannan aod Mr. Ross.


Hughes. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, Norman

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 6, after the first "and", to insert "half-past".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): It will be convenient also to discuss the Amendment in line 7, leave out "half-past".

Mr. Ross: These are simple Amendments. The first would mean a period of from 11 a.m. to 2.30 in the afternoon and that the period from 4 p.m. to 9.30 would be changed to a period of from 4 to 9 p.m. In other words, we would add half an hour in the morning and take off half an hour in the evening.
Hon. Members will wonder what is the reason. We were told that the reason for the proposal in the Clause concerning athletic sports or games, which evidently cannot go on without liquor for those who have been hard at it in the field, is that daylight ends rather quickly in the winter, and, therefore, the time in the afternoon must be brought forward. There was no trouble about the morning hours, which, according to the permitted hours, are from 11 a.m. until 2.30 p.m. The Bill as printed gives the period as 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., but I believe that there is an Amendment to change 3 p.m. to 2.30.
If there is no difficulty about mornings, why make a change? Let us keep this slight measure of uniformity and retain what uniformity there is concerning the morning. The difficulty evidently arises only in the afternoon, because daylight lasts such a short time. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is not present, because he would tell us that daylight ends much earlier in that part of Scotland in wintertime. I had experience of that during the war, when one of the wild Scottish units with which I was connected—the Highland Light

Infantry—spent some time in that part of Scotland, and in winter daylight ended about lunch time. Therefore, any pretence that the change is for the greater benefit of all the people of Scotland is considerable eyewash. Is there any reason why, in making a change in the afternoon, we should interfere with the morning? I suggest that if a change has to be made in the afternoon it should be balanced by taking off an equal amount of time at the end of the day.
The two Amendments to the proposed new Clause go together, and I suggest that they really are sensible and in keeping with what the Under-Secretary of State told us in Committee he was proposing to do, that he was going to bring forward the club's hour of opening in the afternoon but lop off time in the evening. Actually, many people want it both ways. I thought that really a further compromise and that there would be made a change in the standard hours in the morning, to save the extra half hour in the evening. Instead, we are only getting this slight change.
I think that there would be no difficulty at all about this half hour change. I do not think that any golfer is worried about the state of play at nine o'clock at night, at the coming down of darkness. According to the arguments presented to us in Committee, evidently the only reason why anyone plays golf in the winter is that after the eighteenth hole he can go on to the nineteenth. No one in a golf club or any club that has not a licence is very much worried about the permitted hours, but for those in the hallowed golf clubs who cannot go on without a drink we must change the standard hours—to suit them. If we must make this change, let us do the decent thing about it.
The whole new Clause is shoddy and hardly worth discussing. I wish that the Secretary of State had paid a little more


attention to what went on in Committee about this, because the behaviour of the Government on the question of the clubs has been disgusting. Let him keep the one promise he did make, which I was prepared to support, that if he brought forward an earlier time in the afternoon he would take equal time off in the evening.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said, but all the same I think that we ought to stick to the hours set out in the new Clause, and I will tell him our reasons. Admittedly, the Amendment he proposes to the proposed new Clause would give the clubs half an hour at a time which would seem useful for the purposes which we are aiming at in these new provisions, but if we accepted his Amendment to the proposed new Clause we should be saying that the afternoon closing hour in the alternative set of provisions should be 2.30 while the opening hour would be four o'clock, which would give only a 1½hour break in the afternoon.
It has been argued in other connections that the two-hour break is advantageous from the point of view of the staff. I freely accept that that argument is not as strong an argument as regards clubs as it is in the case of other licensed premises—

Mr. Ross: It is not an argument at all.

Mr. Brooman-White: But in the case of other premises we are going a little further to try to give what the people concerned regard as adequate time in the afternoon. We shall seek to do that by a later Amendment which I cannot now discuss. That is to provide a break for the staff. We feel that there is a considerable amount to be said for maintaining this much of standardisation, the two-hour break between the afternoon closing time and the time when the premises open again.
5.15 p.m.
To close at 2.30 p.m. might represent a relaxation, but from discussions we have had with Scottish sporting clubs we are assured that the hour of two o'clock would be adequate to avoid any

major inconvenience to their members, and we have set out to do what we could to avoid clubs having any grave inconvenience in making the maximum standardisation we could. As we want to maintain an adequate break for the staff in the afternoon, I suggest we leave the hours as they stand in the proposed Clause.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 29, after "daylight" to insert "during the winter period".
This is purely a drafting Amendment to ensure that these facilities are for games actually played during the winter period and to safeguard the definition of what it is for which these alternative hours are provided. I am not very happy about the wording. I would gladly listen to the Lord Advocate on this question and be prepared to accept his judgment on it, but I thought that my Amendment to the proposed new Clause would tighten up the definition and interpretation and make it watertight.

Mr. Brooman-White: I can, I think, reassure the hon. Gentleman on this point. Our intention is precisely as he has stated it. I am advised that the phrase "during the winter period" in the subsection is adequately governed by what follows and that it would be tautological and unnecessary to insert the phrase again at the later place, and that that might, indeed, make matters a little more obscure. I think that what the hon. Member wants is ensured by the new Clause as drafted, and I hope that he Will accept this assurance.

Mr. Ross: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman or the Lord Advocate would look again at the terms of subsection (2, C):
that the said premises are regularly used, or are intended regularly to be used, during the winter period, for providing facilities in connection with the carrying on…of the club
and so on. I realise that we are no longer in Committee but are at the Report stage, and so I will not seek to press the point further, but I am not particularly happy about this wording and I hope that the Lord Advocate will have a look at it. In the meantime, I beg to


ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 36, at the end to insert:
(e) that having regard to the location of the premises the public interest as represented by the desirability of maintaining uniformity of permitted hours in the locality will not be undermined by the making of the order.
I was hoping, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that with this would be taken my consequential Amendment to line 41, to leave out "(d)" and insert "(e)". However, I am sure that if the House accepts this Amendment the Government will be prepared to accept the consequential one.
This is by far the most important of my Amendments to the proposed Clause because it would allow the sheriff a new criterion on which to judge whether or not an order in respect of alternative hours should be granted, and the consequential Amendment, in line 41, would give the chief constable, in carrying out his duties, a wider and, to my mind, far more reasonable field of objection in which he could, if he thought fit, object to the proposed order.
My Amendment suggests that a judgment should be made on the effect which the granting of an order would have upon the place in which it would operate, and the judgment should be based on the public interest as represented by the desirability of having standard hours in the locality. I state "locality" quite definitely because I do not mean a wide area. I am thinking of a small area. The Guest Committee recommended—and I think that at this stage of the Bill the Government accept the desirability of this in respect of licensed premises in Scotland—having uniform hours all over.
I think that the reasons were obvious. Whether English or Scottish hon. Members like it or not, when in adjoining towns there was half an hour's difference in closing hours late transport was at a premium. People actually went from one place to the other to get the extra half hour's drinking time. I think that the Government accepted the

advice of the chief constables that it was desirable to put a stop to this and to have uniform hours.
We are now opening up the position again by the change we are making in the new Clause which has been read a Second time. I want to put this to the Minister. Is it right or desirable that on, for instance, Sunday, we should now have the position where the permitted hours for licensed hotels, restaurants or any other place with a restricted hotel licence should be 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. whereas in the club it should be from 12.30 p.m. to 2 p.m. and from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.? In other words, a person drinks in a club until 2 p.m. after which, if he likes, hr-, can go to a hotel and drink for an extra half hour. He can then go back to the club at 4 o'clock, two and a half hours before the other places are open, drink till eight and then go out of the club to a hotel and have another two hours' drinking. Therefore, he will have an extra three hours' drinking time in this way.
Some people may think that this is far-fetched. There is quite an important game going on at Troon at the moment. I am concerned how Eric Brown is doing. I do not know how many hon. Members know Troon clubhouse which, I assume, is licensed. As far as Eric Brown is concerned, the game is mare important than the drink. Just next door to the clubhouse—I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin-grove (Mr. Lilley) will recollect this—is a licensed hotel. It is only a dozen steps away. Here we are going to have permitted hours in the one place and alternative hours in the other.
The variation is not just half an hour. In the case of a Sunday afternoon it is two and a half hours, with an additional two hours at the other end. When a person finishes drinking in the clubhouse all he has to do is to walk a dozen steps in order to have another two hours' drinking time. It may be said that people will not do this. True, they may not do it in Troon, but they will do it somewhere else. The fact is that we took steps to standardise licensing hours just because people moved out of Ayr into Prestwick and out of Glasgow into somewhere else. This happened all over Scotland where there was a variation of


licensing hours in two adjacent places. This is what is going to take place in small areas.
I wonder if the Government have thought of the desirability of having uniformity of hours in the public interest. There may be areas in which there are clubs where it would not happen at all. I can think of many clubhouses which are miles away from anywhere, and I am quite prepared to believe that people will not jump into their cars and go as quickly as possible elsewhere to get a drink. The fact is that if next door to a clubhouse, where the people have been drinking from teatime till 8 o'clock, there are licensed premises which remain open for two hours after the clubhouse is shut, one cannot blame them for taking advantage of the facilities which have been made available to them by the Government. I think it undesirable in the public interest that that should be so. I am sure that every other hon. Member can think of such——

Mr. Lilley: I am quite sure that my hon. Friend gave the hon. Gentleman an instance. His constituency has a main street, one side of which is dry and the other wet. Does that not prove that we are trying to clear up the whole position?

Mr. Ross: We are not trying to clear it up in this connection. That is covered by the principal Act. I do not know to which hon. Friend the hon. Gentleman was referring, whether he meant his hon. Friend sitting beside him or some other hon. Member, but what he said is quite irrelevant to the discussion of this Clause. If he thinks it an anomaly and thinks it undesirable, then why should he seek to multiply the anomaly in different parts of Scotland by introducing these alternative hours? The logic of what the hon. Gentleman has stated in his intervention is that he should have voted with me the last time to ensure uniformity. I hope that I have said enough to the hon. Gentleman to show why I think that a change of the kind I propose should be made in the Bill.
This would enable the chief constable to raise an objection in relation to this kind of problem within a narrow area. It is only in certain places that it may arise. I think that the Government, having decided to depart from the

original idea of the Bill, should at least have this measure of get-out in relation to problems which may arise in certain localities.
Paragraph (e) extends the criterion for the sheriff. It gives him this measure of latitude. It is reasonable that the chief constable should be the judge in relation to whether or not there might be such scope for drinking as between the alternative hours and the permitted hours as to cause offence in the public interest, and thus make the objection to the sheriff. It would then be up to the sheriff to decide.
I think that this is a very reasonable Amendment and I sincerely hope that even if the Government do not like its actual wording—I plead guilty to having prepared it rather hurriedly over the past few days because I did not see the new Clause until Monday—they will, if they think that its object should be inserted in the new Clause, have it put into proper legal language. I feel that the reasons why we initially set out to get uniform hours are equally valid in a more local sense in relation to the problem which the Government have now created by their departure in respect of alternative hours for athletic clubs.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hannan: I wish to support the Amendment. By the acceptance of the new Clause a breach has been made in the principle of uniformity in respect of licensing hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is right in trying to persuade hon. Members that, although that principle has been breached, an attempt should be made to maintain it within a certain area, on a narrow front to use his term.
I am sustained in this view by what appears in the Guest Committee's Report. The Government must not object if hon. Members on this side of the House refer constantly to the Report of the Guest Committee because, so far as I can judge from the debates, this Report was their Bible during the proceedings on the Bill. In paragraph 78 the Report states:
We are in entire agreement with the, suggestion that permitted hours should be made standard. In regard to the rush between neighbouring areas at closing time"—


The Committee admits that rush—
we feel that it would be invidious to single out particular examples in case it should be thought that we are directing criticism at the actions of individual licensing courts, but we are quite satisfied that real abuse occurs….
The Under-Secretary of State and his hon. Friends will be living in cloud. cuckoo-land if they do not recognise that the acceptance of the Clause will lead to abuses. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock has cited an example of what could happen within his area. The Amendment asks that regard should be paid to the local licensing rules within an area, and that at least the principle of maintaining uniformity, which has been forsaken by the Government, should be preserved on a narrow front. I hope that we have convinced sufficient hon. Members that this reasonable Amendment should be supported.
The Government ought to look at this matter again. They will not lose anything by doing so. They have secured the new Clause. It is only now a question whether in a given area opportunities should be provided for the misuse of the facilities for drinking during permitted hours and the new athletics clubs and, I predict, before long to a great many other kinds of clubs. Why should not there be allotment association clubs? Tending an allotment is a pastime which takes place in the open air. I can think of a host of organisations whose members would wish to avail themselves of the opportunity which is provided and will find reasons for making application. If the Government are sincere in their statements about the importance of the Guest Committee's Report, they should at least agree to accept this Amendment.

Mr. W. Baxter: I am sure that many hon. Members will live to regret the fact that they voted in favour of the new Clause because a breach has been made in the basic principle on which the Bill was based, namely, that there should be uniformity in the Scottish licensing laws. This was the recommendation, more or less, of the Guest Committee on which the Government have, apparently, based their ideas. Now that we have made the breach it would be only reasonable and equitable to accept the Amendment.
A chief constable has a definite responsibility for maintaining law and order and it would be unwise for the House of Commons in any way to seek to undermine that responsibility. We shall be making it much more difficult for a chief constable to maintain the law unless we give him, or the sheriff, power to curtail in a given area the extent of the violation of uniformity in the licensing laws. This is a reasonable suggestion. It is not unreasonable to expect the Government to regard reasoned Amendments with care and consideration.
I asked what exeperience the Lord Advocate had of licensing courts or the work of licensing committees. I also asked whether the Secretary of State had had much experience in that respect. Some hon. Members have had considerable experience of the work of licensing courts, and of police committees charged with the responsibility of keeping law and order. Some hon. Members are justices of the peace and they have the duty of trying to enforce the laws which we, as legislators, seek to put upon the Statute Book. In view of the general agreement that the licensing laws should be made uniform, it ill becomes the Government to breach that principle.
Here we have a set of circumstances where, in a confined locality, there might be a differentiation in the licensing laws and that would mean ultimately that law and order would be undermined to a certain extent. I counsel the Government to be extremely careful about the road along which they seek to travel. Every organisation in Scotland, the temperance organisations and others, extended a welcome to the Bill in some degree. Although in principle some of the organisations may be opposed to extending facilities for drinking, they welcomed the Bill because of the principle that the licensing laws would be made uniform. It is a great calamity that a breach has been made in that principle and I consider that many hon. Members who voted for the new Clause will live to regret their action. As one who has had a reasonable amount of experience, I counsel the Government to give serious consideration to this Amendment.

Mr. Brooman-White: I fully appreciate the cogency of the arguments


which have been advanced in favour of standardisation. As was said by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter):standardisation is one of the major factors in the Bill which led to its acceptance and the general welcome to it in Scotland. The Bill has achieved standardisation between various areas and its provision will prevent the movement of people from area to area in order to continue drinking. The Bill's provisions would impose standard hours on clubs. Previously, within a wide bracket, clubs could select hours which suited their members. Acceptance of the Bill's provisions has not been achieved without causing inconvenience to various people who had hitherto selected permitted hours to suit themselves. But we thought it right that, in the pursuit of standardisation, a certain degree of inconvenience should be accepted by some.
We have departed from the principle of standardisation in this single instance where because of the principal activity of the clubs concerned—outdoor games—we felt that a greater degree of inconvenience would result. That we have tried to put right by the Clause which has been accepted. This Amendment, for reasons that I well understand, asks that, within a certain area, discretion should be given to the sheriff to make a selection between sporting clubs which qualify for the alternative set of hours granted under various arrangements, provisions and safeguards which we have been discussing. It asks that the sheriff should be able to make a selection not only on the merits of a case which could be advanced by a club, to prove that it fairly qualified through the nature of the pursuits carried on there to apply for the exceptional hours, but also on the circumstances of the location of the club.
If one golf club has a perfectly good case and, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, there is no pub near it, there can be no objection to granting it the alternative set of permitted hours. But another golf club may stand absolutely four-square on the merits of the case, and its members

may have just as great a cause for wanting this provision but, because it happens to be next door to a pub, there might be a temptation for the members to go next door. It does not seem right that that club should be denied this choice. Any scope for abuse is extremely limited. This provision would apply only to members of the club and their guests.
There is a second consideration of a slightly more esoteric nature. The Amendment would place on the sheriff the burden of making a choice, not of ascertaining a fact. As a matter of social judgment he has to decide whether in the interests of an area this should OT should not be done. I understand that that is not the sort of decision normally placed upon a sheriff. I hope that on reflection hon. Members will feel that the degree of danger in this proposal is so small and the degree of inequity between one sporting club and another would be so great that we would not be justified in accepting the Amendment.

Miss Margaret Herbison: The reply of the Under-Secretary was no case at all for rejection of the Amendment. We lost on the question of principle in the last Division. The Clause has been read a Second time.
We are told that there are two reasons why the Government have decided that they cannot accept the Amendment. The first is that it would lead to differentiation between one club and another. I have had all the literature sent to me that other hon. Members have had. I have had the pressure which has moved the Government to introduce this Clause; all of us have had it. The Government have made it quite clear that they have introduced the Clause so that those taking part in outdoor sports will be able if they wish to buy a drink for themselves and their friends after whatever game they have been playing has finished. That is their one main case for this Clause. If the Amendment were accepted it would still be possible for those members to buy a drink for themselves and for their friends.
The Under-Secretary said that the sheriff would have to decide that one


club could have these extended hours and another club could not have them.

Mr. Brooman-White: In case this is misunderstood outside, I should point out that they are not extended hours; they are alternative hours.

5.45 p.m.

Miss Herbison: They are the permitted hours for these sports clubs. The sheriff is a most responsible person in Scotland. In this new Clause little or no discretion is deft to the sheriff. It seems that almost automatically he would have to grant this permission to clubs merely in order that these people should have a drink. If in the view of the sheriff there are other licensed premises near the club, in the locality of the club, if they wish to have drink they can still have it in those other premises. It seems very wrong that the Secretary of State should reject this simple Amendment.
The Minister said that it was not a matter of fact which has to be decided, but it seems to be a clear matter of fact. If it is confined to a locality the sheriff has to decide whether or not there are licensed premises in that locality. One of the main points made by the Guest Committee was that there should be uniformity of permitted hours so that there should be no rushing from one lot of licensed premises to another. If the Clause is not amended, that may happen. If it is not amended there could be the real abuse about which the Guest Committee spoke.
Very little is asked for by this Amendment, but it is something which might have serious results in a particular area. There is a golf club in my constituency from which the sportsmen could transfer to a hotel within five minutes. Many of them do not play right up to the last minute of their permitted hours. If they had been drinking and felt that they should be able to drink for a further time there could be serious consequences. I ask the Under-Secretary to think about this again.

Amendment negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(EXTENSION OF PERMITTED HOURS IN THE AFTERNOON IN CERTAIN LICENSED PREMISES AND CLUBS.)

(1) This section shall apply to any premises for which a certificate (other than an off-sale certificate) is held or to the premises of a registered club—

(a) if the holder of the certificate or, as the case may be, the club gives notice of the application of the section to the premises in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) of this section, and
(b) as from such date as may be specified in the said notice:
Provided that, in the case of premises for which a hotel or a public house certificate is held or the premises of a club, the certificate-holder or the club, as the case may be, shall not give notice of application as aforesaid, and this section shall not apply to such premises, unless the licensing court for the licensing area within which the premises are situated are satisfied that the premises are structurally adapted andbona fideused, or intended to be used, for the purpose of habitually providing the customary main meal at midday for the accommodation of persons frequenting the premises.

(2) While this section applies to any premises the effect shall be that, for the purposes mentioned in the next following subsection, on weekdays the permitted hours in those premises in the afternoon, as fixed by section four or, as the case may be, section (Alternative permitted hours in certain athletic clubs during winter) of this Act, shall be increased by the addition of half an hour at the end thereof.

(3) The purposes referred to in the last foregoing subsection are—

(a) the sale or supply to persons taking table meals in the premises of exciseable liquor supplied in a part of the premises usually set apart for the service of such persons, and supplied for consumption by such a person in that part of the premises as an ancillary to his meal; and
(b) the consumption of exciseable liquor so supplied.

(4) While this section applies to any premises, then for purposes other than those mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, or in parts of the premises other than the part so mentioned, the permitted hours shall be the same as if this section did not apply to the premises.

(5) This section shall cease to apply to any premises on the expiry of the twenty-seventh day of May in any year if the holder of the certificate or the club, as the case may be, gives notice of the disapplication of the section from the premises in accordance with the provisions of the next following subsection:

Provided that this section shall cease to apply to premises for which a hotel or a public house certificate is held, or to the premises of a club, at any time on the licensing court ceasing to be satisfied as mentioned in the proviso to subsection (1) of this section.

(6) A notice of the application of this section to, or of the disapplication of this section from, any premises—

(a) shall be in writing;
(b) shall, in the case of a club, be given by the secretary of the club on its behalf;
(c) shall, in the case of a notice of application, specify the date from which the section is to apply to the premises and, in the case of a notice of disapplication, state that the section is to cease to apply to the premises on the expiry of the twenty-seventh day of May next following the giving of the notice;
(d) shall be served on the chief constable not later than fourteen days before the date specified as aforesaid, or not later than fourteen days before the twenty-seventh day of May, as the case may be.

(7) The secretary of any club to the premises of which this section applies shall notify the licensing court for the licensing area within which such premises are situated of any reconstruction or extension of, or alteration in, the premises which affects the facilities available in the premises for the provision of the customary main meal at midday, and if the secretary of any club contravenes this subsection he shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction thereof shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

(8) The holder of the certificate for premises to which this section applies shall keep posted in some conspicuous place in the premises a notice stating that this section applies thereto and setting out the effect of its application, and if any person contravenes this subsection he shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction thereof shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Brooman-White: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I wonder whether it would be for the convenience of the House to consider this new Clause with the Amendments in Clause 4, page 5, line 41, to leave out "three" and to insert "half-past two"; and in page 6, line 6, to leave out "three" and to insert "half-past two".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that that would be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Brooman-White: The case which I have to put to the House is simple. In a discussion in Committee on permitted hours, we undertook to look again at the situation. One point struck us as a reasonable change to make. The present closing hour is 3 p.m. It was represented to us strongly that this was not suitable from the point of view of the convenience of the staff working in licensed premises. By the time they had completed washing up and cleaning the premises, and had gone home for

something to eat, it would be almost time for them to return to get the premises ready for opening again. It was represented that this would be a considerable strain on them, and we saw the force of that argument.
We looked again at the reasons why the Guest Committee recommended 3 p.m. as the closing hour. There were two. The first was that in the majority of licensing areas in Scotland, although there were variations between areas, the closing hour was 3 p.m. But we reconsidered this from the point of view of the number of public houses, and we found that only about 35 per cent, closed at 3 p.m. and that 65 per cent, closed earlier. We felt, therefore, that the argument based on the practice of licensing areas was not very strong in this case and, in fact, had led us the wrong way.
The second argument was that it would be a substantial inconvenience to travellers and others to have an earlier closing hour in the afternoon for drink with meals. We fully accept the validity of that argument, and the new Clause, as opposed to the Amendments, is concerned with meeting that point. It is a rather elaborate piece of machinery to secure a simple objective. All the new Clause, read with the Amendments, does is to say that the closing hour for bar drinking should be 2.30 p.m. instead of 3 p.m., but that the provision for drinking with meals should remain unchanged. The procedure is, of course, complicated, but it is based on our own provision for an extension and on arrangements made in the English Bill by which in certain areas the closing hour is 2.30 p.m. and a similar provision is made for the continuance of drinking with meals until 3 p.m.
If the closing hour of 2.30 p.m. is accepted rather than 3 p.m., it means a slight reduction in the total number of hours available for bar drinking in Scotland, but the half-hour between 2.30 p.m. and 3 p.m. is not in wide demand by the public, and it imposes inconvenience on the staff in licensed premises. We think that it is a reasonable change to make. If so, and as a corollary, we think that the new Clause should be introduced to ensure that the Amendments do not curtail the existing provisions in the Bill for drinks with meals in those premises which make application under the provisions of the Clause.

Mr. Hannan: May I offer an apology to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the Under-Secretary of State in that there was some distraction at the beginning of the debate when I was trying to ascertain the Amendments under discussion. Am I right that we are considering the new Clause "Extension of permitted hours in the afternoon in certain licensed premises and clubs" together with the Amendment in page 5, line 41, to leave out "three" and to insert "half-past two" and the Amendment in page 6, line 6, to make a similar change?

Mr. Brooman-White: Mr. Brooman-White indicated assent.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I interrupt the hon. Member in the interest of clarity. As I understand it, the two Amendments which are being discussed with the new Clause are those in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland in page 5, line 41, and page 6, line 6.

Mr. Hannan: That is as I thought.
I feel that the Minister's explanation is acceptable to those hon. Members on this side of the House who have been watching the Bill closely. If I understand the Under-Secretary of State correctly, we have to provide this long new Clause to keep the hours as they are, with the exception that during the afternoon they are changed from 3 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. I agree that that half-hour is not in great demand although, on the other hand, it might be looked upon as an attractive half-hour which would decide a man whether to go back to work or business or to continue drinking. I understood the Under-Secretary of State to say that this made no difference to the total number of hours available for drinking.

Mr. Brooman-White: There is half-an-hour less in the total bar drinking hours, but no change in the hours for drinking with meals.

Mr. Hannan: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for that explanation, which makes me still more enthusiastic about the acceptance of the Clause. But it is extraordinary that, to make a change of this character, the Government having departed from the principle, they give the draftsmen and the Department all the trouble of creating a frightful-looking Clause of 70 to 100 lines in order to make such a simple Amendment as this.
As the explanation is acceptable at least to myself, I do not intend to delay the House longer. I think that I can say for some of my hon. Friends, too, that it is acceptable.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(SALE OF EXCISEABLE LIQUOR IN REGISTERED CLUBS TO MEMBERS OF OTHER CLUBS.)

(1) Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, the rules of a registered club may provide for the admission to the premises of the club of persons who are members of another club, and for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor to such persons by or on behalf of the club for consumption on the premises, if—

(a) the other club is a registered club whose premises are in the locality and are temporarily closed; or
(b) both clubs exist for learned, educational or political objects of a similar nature; or
(c) each of the clubs is primarily a club for persons who are qualified by service or past service, or by any particular service or past service, in Her Majesty's Forces and are members of an organisation established by Royal Charter, and consists wholly or mainly of such persons; or
(d) each of the clubs is primarily a club for persons who carry on the same trade, profession or occupation, and that trade, profession or occupation is the same in the case of either club; or
(e) each of the clubs is a working men's club (that is to say, a club which is, as regards its purposes, qualified for registration as a working men's club under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and is a registered society within the meaning of that Act or of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893).

(2) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, the authority of a certificate or licence shall not be required for such a sale of exciseable liquor as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection and, where the rules of a club provide as aforesaid, exciseable liquor may be supplied in the premises of the club to such persons as are mentioned in that subsection and their guests for consumption on the premises, as it may to members of the club and their guests.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.0 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The new Clause involves, if it is accepted, the consequential Amendments to Clause 15, page 15, line 22, after the first "the" to insert "sale


or"; and in line 27, after "the", to insert "sale or".
The reason for the new Clause is that I gave an undertaking in Committee, when Amendments were moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) in regard to what I might call club affiliation; that is to say, where clubs give honorary membership or receive into their premises members of other clubs. The hon. Member for Dundee, East had in mind two types of clubs. The first were clubs like the staff club at St. Andrew's University which entertained visiting professors and lecturers from Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh and had to enrol them as honorary members.
It was found that the sheriff in the neighbourhood took, if I may respectfully say so, a slightly different view of the law to that which I take. As a result, the club had to go through the whole formality of electing these visiting professors and lecturers as honorary members. The second type of clubs he cited was railwaymen's clubs, like those in Perth, and the hon. Member for Govan raised a similar question in regard to working men's clubs.
My view—although I do not claim to be infallible and I realise that certain sheriffs disagree with me—is that under the law as it stands it is perfectly proper to have affiliation arrangements with another club so that members of that club can come in and be treated as members and have the privileges of members, for example, in buying their drinks and introducing guests. But in view of the doubt which has arisen, the Government have felt it right to bring in the new Clause, which is basically founded on part of Section 28 of the English Licensing Act, 1961.
The new Clause is designed to make it clear in what circumstances members of other clubs can be received into what I might call the receiving clubs and have the privilege of buying drinks and entertaining their guests in them. There are five types of affiliation, or pairing arrangements, which are specifically covered.
Sub-paragraph (a) deals with the position of a club which is temporarily closed. That may happen, for example,

during the holiday season when the staff are away. Club A may be closed for a fortnight in July while club B might be closed for a fortnight in August so that the clubs can exchange their staffs during those periods. They may also be closed for redecoration or reconstruction, and so on.
Paragraph (b) deals with the club like the St. Andrew's University staff club which exists for learned or educational purposes and it also covers clubs like Conservative or Labour clubs which have political objectives. Paragraph (c) deals with the arrangements by members of clubs in the Royal Naval Association, the British Legion or the Royal Air Force Association under which the members of the club of one branch can have entrance and facilities in another club. That has worked perfectly reasonably in the past and I do not see why it should not continue to do so.
Paragraph (d) covers the type of club like the railwaymen's club in Perth. Paragraph (e) deals with working men's clubs, the point raised by the hon. Member for Govan. I do not see that what I have stated represents any change in the law. The new Clause is merely designed to clarify the law although, admittedly, not every lawyer and sheriff agrees with me.
It seems reasonable to clarify the law in this way when these facilities are specifically laid down in England and appear to have worked well without abuse. Equally, in many parts of Scotland—where the sheriffs have thought fit—similar arrangements have worked without abuse up to now.

Mr. W. Baxter: Why is it necessary to clarify the law if it has been operating satisfactorily up to now? As there is a certain amount of doubt on the part of certain sheriffs and lawyers, does not what the Lord Advocate has said mean that greater difficulty will be caused?

The Lord Advocate: When one clarifies the law one does not try to make the position more confused. The position is that certain sheriffs now accept the provisions of the Clause as being the existing law while others think that it is not. I am merely saying that I hope the law will be regarded as it is stated in the Clause.


The Amendments, which are consequential to the new Clause are designed to insert the words "sale or" before the word "supply", because the people with whom we are concerned will be coming in not as members and, accordingly, the drink is sold to them and not supplied to them. This is a purely technical matter.

Mr. Hoy: I was pleased to hear the Lord Advocate say that the new Clause is designed to clarify the law. Apparently at present the sheriffs cannot make up their minds about the matter. If so, it means that some get justice in Scotland while others do not—depending on the sheriff who is trying the case. The Lord Advocate said that some sheriffs agreed with him while others did not——

The Lord Advocate: The difficulty in this case is that there is no right of appeal. There is a single judge, the sheriff, whereas in 99 per cent. of cases there is some sort of appeal.

Mr. Hoy: I made that point in Committee. I raised that precise matter with the right hon. and learned Gentleman because I thought that under the law there was some method of appeal against a decision. However, I was informed that there was no right of appeal. Therefore, some sheriffs interpreted the law as being one thing while others took a contrary view. I suppose that it was thought that if 50 per cent. of the sheriffs went one way and the other 50 per cent. went the other, on balance justice was done. However, that thought did not bring any satisfaction to the people on the side of the wrong sheriffs.
If the new Clause helps to clarify the law we shall all be grateful. Any contribution which the Lord Advocate can make resulting in it being less likely that lawyers will be employed will meet with satisfaction.

Mr. Hannan: If there have been differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of the law, presumably there will be even more differences of opinion when the new Clause is enacted. Although it is said that the new Clause will clarify the position, we shall be back where we started, and since the Lord Advocate represents the Law Office fin Scotland, can he say how this matter is to be resolved?
This provision means that there will be inter-visiting by clubs, in the spirit ofbonhomie,good fellowship, good comradeship—all these fine words that are prostituted for the sake of participation in this sort of business. Paragraph (a) says that if
… the other 'is a registered club whose premises are in the locality and are temporarily closed …
its members can be admitted to another club, but the premises may have been closed by the action of the law. Are the members of that club still to have this same facility? If a club is closed by police action, can its members find the same facilities in another club——

The Lord Advocate: That arises under an Amendment to this Clause which may—I do not know—be discussed later. As soon as the premises are closed by law, the club ceases to be a registered club, and paragraph (a) does not then apply to it. It must be a registered club and, therefore, still open.

Mr. Hannan: Then let us turn to paragraph (b), where
… both clubs exist for learned, educational or political objects of a similar nature…
That means that the St. Andrew's clubs are to be used as an example for opening up in a wider field. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) is not here because he, too, is interested in educational objectives.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State told us that youth clubs had accepted the recommendations of a committee in respect of licensing and temperance, and I hope that they will not be 'brought into this. The Lord Advocate assures me on that score, and I am relieved to know it. On the other hand, those clubs are in need of money, and if there is this liberalising, civilising object of making drinking laws wider and wider, I must ask, facetiously and ironically, why not youth clubs? If the permission is good enough for clubs into which young people of between 18 and 19 go, why is it not good enough for young people of 16 and 17?
I am not very happy about the terms of this new Clause because it seems to widen the faculties for people to drift from one club to another and for a


bigger congregation of people to go from the cities into the country to visit like-minded clubs existing for these
… learned, educational or political objects of a similar nature …
Those words will be quoted. Ex-Service men's clubs, British Legion clubs, clubs whose members keep pigeons and all the rest, will find some pretext or other to visit clubs in the country areas, and we shall have the ugly scenes that we are trying to stop. In that respect, we shall aggravate the situation.
I do not yet know what my hon. Friends will say about this new Clause, but I personally have these doubts and hesitations. I should feel somewhat happier if the Lord Advocate could reassure me that youth clubs will not in any way be involved under paragraphs (a) and (b).

The Lord Advocate: It would be open to youth clubs to become registered clubs. In practice, they do not, and there are restrictions on the selling of drink to young persons in clubs. I do not know of any youth club that is a registered club, and I doubt whether any ever will be. I do not think that the Clause will have any effect upon them. As to clarification, we are saying that certain views that certain sheriffs have had should no longer be operative, and that these particular reciprocal arrangements should not bar a receiving club from continuing as a registered club.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in paragraph (a) after "closed" to insert:
for reasons outwith a court order".
The new Clause begins by saying that
… Notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, the rules of a registered club may provide for the admission to the premises of the club of persons who are members of another club, and for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor to such persons by or on behalf of the club for consumption on the premises, if—
(a) the other club is a registered club whose premises are in the locality and are temporarily closed; or …

A special case is being made in relation to clubs in the locality of another club that is temporarily closed, and we have no amplification of what "temporarily closed" means.
I apologise to the Lord Advocate for not being present when the Second Reading of the new Clause was moved, but I believe that he suggested that if a court order had been made the club was automatically disqualified, and was no longer a registered club. I am not altogether happy about that. I have seen in the Press that a club was to be closed for, say, three months in which case, presumably, the club would be temporarily closed and, on the face of it, it would come under the provisions of paragraph (a). When it reopened, its members would automatically resume their membership, without all the business of registration, and the like.
There is no limitation here as to cognate subjects of interest between members of learned, professional or political clubs. One could presume that if, for some reason or other, the Liberal Club in West Lothian were closed down, its members could use the Conservative Club there. They probably do. They probably have a new affinity now, in that candidates of both those political parties lose their deposits in by-elections.
Again, there is no mention of proper control of the size of the premises. A very small club might be open and a very large one temporarily closed, the premises of the smaller one being quite unsuitable in relation to the membership of the other. I am not sure that much thought has been given to this Clause, which automatically confers a right in relation to clubs temporarily closed. There is nothing said about premises being suitable or adequate, or anything like that. Little thought seems to be given to some of the other things that are additionally allowed because, under another paragraph, an open club can receive members of other clubs that are temporarily closed.
I think that it goes far beyond the original intention of the Government, and I am sure that it requires clarification. I should like to be absolutely clear as to the limitations of "temporarily closed". A club may be closed because it has run out of money and is going bankrupt. Then there is always the


possibility that the mineral water has run out; that there is no longer any water in the area and people have to go elsewhere for their water.
The position is not clear to me. I think that the Government are far too generous in this respect. We need a tightening of the law. I should like the Lord Advocate to tell me that if the courts have temporarily closed a club its members would not automatically get the benefits which they are denied in their own club by going to another. Can he give me some idea of the circumstances which led him to insist on this being put in the Clause, so that people should not have to endure hardship, even unto death, by being denied, for a short time, the facilities of their club? I am not convinced that paragraph (a) is either desirable or necessary, or in the public interest.

The Lord Advocate: The reason why this was inserted was that there are doubts about the law. It is common practice for two clubs in the same locality during the holiday season or when the premises are being reconstructed, redecorated, or the like, to have an arrangement under which the members of the closed club are accepted as members of the club that is open. I have experienced it frequently myself. In my experience, there has been no overcrowding, no unsuitability, no disgraceful behaviour, or anything else to which anyone could take exception. I felt it right that to meet the case of the education clubs or the railwaymen's clubs this particular matter, which is dealt with in the English Act of 1961, should be mentioned in case doubt should rise over what is a well-known, respectable practice.
It is quite true that in Edinburgh a Conservative club can came to an arrangement with a Liberal club during some period of the year—I will not say which—and members of the one can use the other. I have dined exceedingly well in a Liberal club before now, but at the expense of my host and not at my own.

Mr. Ross: Section 173, paragraph (k) of the 1959 Act states:
… unless on the invitation and in the company of a member and that the member shall upon the admission of such visitor to the club

premises or immediately upon his being supplied with such liquor, enter his own name and the name and address of the visitor in a book …
There are considerable limitations there and someone has to keep sufficiently sober to sign the book.

The Lord Advocate: My host signed the book. That is not to say that he was the only sober member of the party. It is a reasonable, well-known practice.
The hon. Member raised a perfectly valid point about the closing of club premises. To repeat what I was saying when he came into the Chamber, if a club ceases to be a registered club it does not come under paragraph (a). The hon. Member will see that the other club must be a registered club. There are two provisions in the main Act. One is for the cancellation of the certificate of registration. Once that is cancelled the club ceases to be a registered club and cannot have the benefit of paragraph (a). That is under Section 175 of the Act of 1959.
The second provision, in Section 176. deals with what, I think, the hon. Member had in mind. Where the sheriff has either refused the renewal of or cancelled the registration under Section 175, he may in addition disqualify the premises from being used as a club. I think that this is referred to rather loosely as closing the premises for a period. It is up to twelve months on a first offence and five years on the second. That is quite separate from the cancellation of the registration.
The phrase "closing the club" is rather loose. In fact, it has no legal foundation. The question is whether the certificate has been cancelled or not, and if it has, or it has not been renewed, the club ceases to be a registered club until a new certificate is obtained.

Mr. Ross: The paragraph says:
… whose premises are in the locality and are temporarily closed.
We are dealing with premises temporarily closed and outwith the court order. That is my Amendment. It is exactly the situation to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred just now.

The Lord Advocate: If the club is a registered club its premises cannot have been closed by a court order. So long


as it is a registered club, the sheriff cannot close its premises. The sheriff can do two things. First, he can cancel the registration. If, but only if, he either cancels it or fails to renew it can he also disqualify the premises from being used for the purposes of a club. So long as the club is a registered club, its premises are not closed and cannot be closed by the sheriff.

Mr. W. Baxter: I am not quite sure what is the position of a town or a community such as Kirkintilloch in this matter. Under the local poll it has voted to remain dry and have no "pubs" in its locality. Has the sheriff power under this Clause to grant a club licence in a town or locality such as I have indicated, which has decided that it does not want "pubs" of any description in its area? I have not seen any indication whether or not a restriction is placed on the sheriff to have regard to the fact that the whole of the people in a particular locality have voted against having "pubs" in their area.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I do not see how the hon. Member's observations are relevant to this Amendment.

Mr. Baxter: I cannot say that they are relevant to the Amendment, Mr. Speaker, but I ask for your indulgence, as I could not find a peg on which to hang my argument.

Mr. Hoy: May I put a further question to the Lord Advocate? I do not think the Lord Advocate dealt with the point relating to a club in respect of which the sheriff has the right to suspend a licence for a period for misbehaviour. Can he suspend the licence? Can he cancel or suspend it for a period of say, three months? If he is able to suspend it for a period up to twelve months, I interpret that to mean that he can do it for not more than twelve months. If he is able to suspend a licence because the law has been infringed, my hon. Friend wants to know whether that would automatically disqualify a member from using the alternative club for the same period or whether it applies only to the premises.

The Lord Advocate: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I am sorry that I did not make that point

clear. There are two matters to consider. One is the cancellation of the certificate—or, as it is sometimes called, the licence. That is a complete cancellation and not a suspension. The club can at a later date ask for a new certificate but the cancellation is permanent, as it were, and not temporary. What is temporary is the additional penalty which the sheriff can impose of disqualifying the premises from being used as a club for a period up to twelve months for the first offence and five years for a second offence. If the certificate is cancelled, that club ceases to he a registered club. It is not temporarily closed; it is "out". I think that that is the point that the hon. Member has in mind.

Amendment negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(PUBLIC DANCING.)

(1) No certificate for the sale of excisable liquor shall be granted by a licensing court, under the powers conferred upon them by the principal Act or by this Act, for the sale of such liquor in a public dance hall.

(2) The form of certificate for a public house specified in the Second Schedule to the principal Act shall be amended by inserting the following condition:—
(14) the certificate holder shall not permit dancing in the premises".—[Sir M. Galpern.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Myer Galpern: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
During the Standing Committee proceedings on this Bill the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), whom I have notified that I would be referring to him this evening, sought to move an Amendment the effect of which would have been that a special licence would be created for public dance halls. He argued his case very cogently, but I am glad to say that the Under-Secretary of State resisted this additional form of licence and the Amendment was not accepted.
As a result of what transpired in the Committee proceedings and the explanations given to public dance-hall owners as to what course of action they could take in view of the fact that this restricted licence had not been granted, I have


put down this new Clause. I was prompted to take this action because the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West made the following statement in the Standing Committee:
The public house is completely unsuitable for that"—
that is, the type of licence which I am trying to prevent being granted—
and what I am asking the Committee to consider is something very much less than the ordinary public house licence, but which would give the patron of these places the opportunity of taking alcoholic drinks if he or she felt inclined to do so. The reason why I consider that the ordinary public house licence is unsuitable for this purpose is that the whole conception of a public house licence is the sale of drink. That is the main business of a public house, but it is not the main business of a dance hall…
The hon. Gentleman said later:
I must make it clear that there is nothing whatever to prevent a dance hall proprietor from applying for a public house licence under the present law, and is it because I consider that any tendency along those lines would be extremely undesirable that I move this Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Scottish Standing Committee,10th May, 1962; c. 5–6.]
That is precisely what I am attempting to do.
It could be reasonably argued that a case could be made out for a restricted licence for a dance hall if the existing law was of such a character that something far worse and of a greater detriment to the young people who frequent dance halls could be applied for and granted. In Committee we went over all the arguments against even the granting of the restricted licence, and when it was shown clearly that there was no demand for this in the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred and that the Guest Committee on the Scottish Licensing Law had not even addressed itself to this problem, the Under-Secretary decided not to accept the Amendment.
A very unusual thing happened during the Committee proceedings when the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West indicated that dance-hall proprietors could, under the existing law, apply for a full public-house licence. The Under-Secretary of State drew attention to the fact—I suppose to show that he was anxious to remain in the good graces of the dance-hall proprietors—that there was

nothing to prevent them from applying under the 1959 Act for a full public-house licence. The dance-hall proprietors, and especially a few in Edinburgh, when asked for their views said, "We are disappointed that this restricted licence has not been granted. We shall certainly accept the advice of the Under-Secretary and will apply for a full public-house licence under the 1959 Act."
If the sponsor of the restricted form of licence feels that it would be completely wrong that there should be a possibility of such a full licence being granted, I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West will be one of my strongest supporters in making certain that no dance-hall proprietor will be able, under the new Measure, to apply for a full public-house licence.
It has been clearly established that the incidence of drinking among the population under the age of 21 has trebled since 1946. We know that drunkenness among young people is on the increase, and, unfortunately, the prophecy is that it will continue to increase, because young people have more money to spend and the drink interests are spending far more money on advertising media to attract some of that surplus cash to themselves.
We also know that the vast majority of people who frequent dance halls—and I make clear the distinction that we are dealing with public dance halls—are young people largely under the age of 21. Some of the girls who go to these dance halls go unaccompanied, that is, they may go there in twos and threes but they are not accompanied by a male escort. Parents feel that they are quite safe in allowing their teen-age daughters to frequent these places because no drink can be supplied in these places of public entertainment. But the whole position will alter if the threat materialises—and I think it is much more than a threat—by the owners of public dance halls, because they are unable through their spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West to obtain a restricted licence, that they will apply to the licensing courts for a full public-house licence.
We shall be told that this is the law at present and that they could have applied for such a licence even if no Amendment for a restricted licence had


been moved. But the fact remains that, so far, no application has been made, possibly because they felt that they would he able to succeed with the restricted form of certificate. Now that they have been thwarted in that desire I feel certain that their threat will be transplanted into reality and that there will be a flood of applications at the next licensing courts from public dance-hall proprietors seeking a full public-house licence. Such a licence means that they will have something which they could not have had under a restricted licence, namely, a public drinking bar.
I remind the House that when a licensing court receives an application for a public-house licence it can only grant that public-house licence. It cannot grant a restricted form of licence. It will, of course. be entitled to grant a restricted licence to a restaurant. The only thing that the court will be able to grant to the applicant will be a public-house licence and the recipient will be entitled to operate just as if he were operating a public house with a bar, a cocktail bar, and all the other things which are associated with the granting of a full public-house certificate. I submit that the Government ought to support even at this stage my proposed new Clause if they feel, as they have felt, that it is wrong to grant a restricted licence. They ought to support a proposal to deal with an infinitely greater danger to the morals of young people than would have been involved in a restricted licence.
There has been quite a controversy over this proposal to have a licence for public dance halls and I shall be told that the licensing court can refuse such an application. That is quite true, but I have had experience of licensing courts. I was once chairman of a licensing court and I know just how the composition and membership varies every three years in Scotland and how some members step out annually and new members come in their place. Unsuccessful application in one given year can easily become a successful application two or three years later.
There is a classic case of one applicant—not in Glasgow—who applied for a public house certificate unsuccessfully on eleven separate occasions. He was so disgusted that he sold his premises. An individual who acquired the

premises made the twelfth application to a new licensing court and it was promptly granted to him. I do not know why that was so, but that is a fact. Therefore, knowing full well that it is open to a licensing court to refuse to grant an application, and knowing also the operation of licensing courts from the inside, I should be afraid that, not at the coming licensing court but at some subsequent one, the first breach might be made in this refusal to grant a full public-house licence to a public dance hall and that once that breach was made there would be no stopping the flood of applications which in all reason and logic would have to be granted. We should then have brought within the reach of very young people a situation in which they could go to public dance halls and, if they so desired, engage in all the facilities which are provided by a full public-house licence.
6.45 p.m.
I have received more correspondence on this subject during my short period in the House of Commons, from anxious parents when we defeated the proposal to have a restricted licence, than on any other subject that has come before Parliament during my membership. I shudder to think what these same parents in Scotland will feel if we fail today to accept this Clause which is designed to deal with something far worse than that dealt with by a restricted licence and which will cause justifiable fears and worries in the minds of parents about their teenage children frequenting public dance halls where public-house licences are in operation.
As for subsection (2) of the Clause, there are in existence some public houses where dancing is permitted. I submit that it wrong that dancing, for which no charge is made and for which the only qualification for entry is that one buys a drink, should be available in public-house premises. But, unfortunately, they exist and especially, and surprisingly, in the great city of Edinburgh, where there is quite a number of such establishments. One can think of the type of females who will go to these places to become the partners of the males who go there.
A duty is laid on the licensee to ensure that no women of low repute repair to his premises, or, at least, to ensure that


he does not allow them to enter knowingly, but we should consider how this situation might develop. In Scotland the tradition is that wives do not accompany husbands into public houses. I hope that the tradition will long continue. At present, therefore, the male individual goes to the public house where there are facilities for dancing, and I ask hon. Members what type of women we could expect to be frequenting a place where there was a public-house licence in order to accompany for dancing men who had entered the premises without partners. What type of woman should we epect to go to these places as dancing partners?
Young people, too, are enabled and entitled to go into these places and engage in dancing if these facilities are provided. It is wrong that this should be permitted. A public house is either a public house or it is a place with a restaurant, and it is quite wrong that people should be admitted without payment and be permitted to engage in dancing. in establishments in which the prime purpose is the sale of drink, and in which the more drink that is sold the merrier become both the owners and the patrons themselves.
Therefore, subsection (2) seeks to prohibit public dancing in public houses. I know that there will be arguments about hotels and so on, but I put those places in a different category. My main concern, as the result of our deliberations in Committee, is that we should at least prohibit or prevent an application coming before a licensing court for a full public-house licence for a public dance hall. The situation which I have envisaged will arise very soon because of the threats made by the owners of public dance halls, and also because of the fact that such a licence could quite easily be granted by a licensing court.
There is far too much nowadays of businesses changing their main purposes. I read in the newspapers recently that the Scottish Greyhound Association was switching from greyhound racing—because the profits have been falling heavily owing to the declining numbers attending this sport—to bowling alleys, licensed restaurants and all sorts of other things. If the licensing courts began granting public-house licences to dance

halls that were beginning to feel the pinch of competition—because that is why they would turn to it—we should be reduced to a very sorry state of affairs indeed.
In conclusion, the best thing I can do is to quote some words of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, because he was most anxious to have this provision and was one who realised the danger that I am seeking to prevent. He said:
I am very much afraid that if a licence of the kind I suggest is not provided there will be an undesirable tendency for the provision of licences under public house conditions. There would be much greater difficulty in control. The primary object of the licence holder would be the sale of drink, not the provision of entertainment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Scottish Standing Committee,10th May, 1962; c. 8].
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West knows exactly what he is talking about, and he is keenly interested in getting this reform. He knows full well that what he said in Committee is likely to materialise if we do not approve this new Clause.

Mr. John Henderson: I am in complete agreement with the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). I represent a constituency in the City of Glasgow, which is a great industrial centre, and during my weekends at home since this Bill was produced I have honestly and sincerely tried to find the pulse of a great many of the people in that city.
I have interviewed a cross-section of the community, from ministers and social workers to people engaged in the realm of sport and in many other aspects of life. I have never yet come across any parent of young folks, or even young folks themselves, who ever anticipated that the day would dawn when applications for liquor licences would be submitted in connection with dance halls. I do not think there is the slightest demand for it, or that a step in this direction was ever anticipated.
I have received many communications from various agencies, and I was interviewed by the proprietors of two of the biggest dance halls in Glasgow. They used the argument that their income was being reduced and that they were being faced with a certain amount of financial loss. One of the arguments


which they put forward was that good hotels in the city on certain nights of the week, generally Saturdays, were organising dinner dances, and that they were attracting some of the young folks who generally attended public dance halls. Consequently, their business was suffering. I suggest that there is no comparison between the public dance hall and the hotel dinner and dance, because those who go to hotels to enjoy dinner and dancing are generally accompanied by their partners. Very often, young people are accompanied by their fathers and mothers, and it is sometimes a family affair, which is entirely different from the circumstances in the public dance halls in big cities.
In order to become acquainted with all the circumstances, I visited two of the dance halls in Glasgow. There were at least 700 young people in these halls, land the procedure which is adopted there is that the young people stand in groups of generally up to a dozen, the young men in one group, and, a little distance away, a similar number of young women. Very few of them go as partners, and when the dance band strikes up, a young man looks around him, selects a partner, and, after the dance is over, rejoins his friends in the group, which may be up to a dozen or a dozen and a half.
Think of a bar being introduced here, and of liquor being supplied to young people. Let us think also of a young man taking more than is good for him and losing complete control of himself. He may not be drunk or anything like it, but he bas now become a big man and is somebody. He goes forward to a young lady, whom he has never seen before and to whom he has not been introduced, and requests her to have a dance with him. She notices the smell of liquor and is not too pleased with his general appearance, and so she says, "No, I do not want this dance."
I am told that this very seldom happens, as a matter of fact, because it is not looked upon as the right thing to refuse a dance. Therefore, the young man feels aggrieved, and that begins a row. He becomes a little bitter, ungentlemanly in his conduct, someone else takes the young lady's side of the argument, and, sooner or later, there is a good deal of disturbance. This

sort of thing may not take place in the country districts, but it is certainly a possibility, and indeed a probability, in the big industrial cities in public dance halls.
It has also been stated that the question of parental control comes in here. Very many parents have spoken to me about this after it was discussed in Committee. They were alarmed that in these days, when there are sufficient temptations to destroy family life in the big cities, and, perhaps, in the countryside too, that this additional vexatious question of supplying liquor in public dance halls should now arise.
7.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Shettleston no doubt has great experience of this matter. Having been Provost of the City of Glasgow for a number of years he must have intimate knowledge of the circumstances that I have described. He must also be familiar with the situation in licensing courts, having been a member of one, as I have. He will doubtless agree that, very often, a bench may be composed of individuals who are anxious to play their full part on behalf of the city they represent, but within eighteen months or two years—or, at the most three years—there is a complete change in the personnel of that court. In those circumstances it can easily happen that although the court had originally refused a licence, the same court, composed of new members, grants a licence in spite of all objections.
I agree with the hon. Member for Shettleston that if the Clause is not accepted there will be demands by countless people in the big cities for licences equivalent to public-house licences. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate the difficulties that may arise in those circumstances and will support the Clause in order to maintain and try to improve the moral standards of the people living in the big cities.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I support the new Clause. It would be one of the worst things that the House could do to permit dance halls eventually to become mainly suppliers of liquor. Ballroom dancing is a delightful pastime, and I do not want to see it cheapened. I do not


want to see the creation of institutions which will drive out the lovers of ball-room dancing and attract the wrong sort of people in their place.
Many hon. Members will know of dance halls which have acquired licences because it was believed that cheaper dancing could be provided if liquor were sold. I know of three dance halls—not in Scotland—where this was done. Eventually those dance halls went out of existence, because they attracted un- desirable elements who drove out the lovers of ballroom dancing. Only one of those dance halls has been re-established, and that one is not now licensed. It has built up a new reputation, and has attracted back lovers of ballroom dancing.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Lilley) stated that golf clubs could not continue unless they were permitted to sell liquor. He said that the economics of golf clubs were such that they had to make profits out of liquor in order to provide golf. All I can say is that it would be a shocking state of affairs if we had to depend upon selling alcoholic liquor to teen-agers in order to make dancing available for them.
My children and I are able to enjoy dancing because the church of which we are members created facilities in its church hall. I wish that that sort of thing were done on a greater scale. It would be far better if social activities were centred round a church rather than a dance hall, especially one which can sell alcohol.
A further most undesirable possibility is that teen-agers will come out of these dance halls, after having taken alcoholic liquors, and drive away in cars. That would be most undesirable. The temperature in a dance hall is fairly high, and the atmosphere is a little stuffy, and I am told that although it is possible to drink whisky for hours indoors and to feel quite all right, When one goes out into the fresh air one gets a shock. I do not know whether that is so. I have no experience of the matter. Perhaps some hon. Members opposite can confirm this.

Mr. Ross: The shook comes before that—when one gets the bill.

Mr. Bence: If that is true in the case of a person who comes out of a hotel or a licensed house, how much more must it be true of one who comes out of a dance hall, having spent three or four hours there? I should have thought that it was rather a stupid thing to take alcohol and to dance at the same time. If I tried it I am sure that I should be flat on my back. From what little experience I have had of the matter, and from what little I have seen, drinking in dance halls is more likely to cause friction and trouble inside than outside.
Lastly, I am told that although most of them have no particular views on drinking, 80 per cent. of the young women who go to dance halls will refuse to dance with a stranger if they believe that he has been drinking. I have been told that more rows, fights and serious disturbances are caused in dance hails over the refusal of a young lady to dance with a man than over anything else. A man may have had only one glass of beer, but his breath may smell, and a young lady may refuse to dance with him. Does the Secretary of State want to encourage disturbances arising from this sort of thing?
A young lady may fear that a man Who has had too much to drink may tread upon her expensive shoes. When a man has had a few drinks he is liable to knock his partner's shoes about when he dances, and shoes are rather expensive, as are nylons. In such circumstances things can become very difficult. There are some young men on both sides of the House who may have experience of these things. I have no doubt that they could confirm or deny what I am saying.
I 'hope that the Secretary of State will accept the Clause. I am sure that its purpose is supported by the vast majority of the people of Scotland. They do not want to see the creation, throughout Scotland, of institutions which provide cheaper dancing and plenty of liquor to go with it. It may be desirable for a hotel or a well-equipped club to provide other amenities; there are institutions where drinking is not the only occupation. But where there is dancing it would be quite undesirable to permit liquor to be sold.

Mr. Ross: I had hoped that, by this time, the Secretary of State would have


shaken himself from his silent lethargy and uttered the magic words that he was prepared on this occasion to accept the new Clause. Seemingly, he is not so stirred. I am disappointed because, if there was one thing which was exhibited during our proceedings in Committee, it was the feeling of the people in Scotland about drinking in public dance halls. Yet haw near we were to this "gutless" Government giving in to their own back benchers. But for the fact that we carried the debate from a Thursday over the weekend to the Tuesday, the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Advocate would have been prepared to sell the pass. It was only the reaction of the Scottish people displayed during the weekend on radio and television and in the Press which prevented them. Why did not the Under-Secretary of State seize the chance to get up and answer the debate earlier when, time after time, members of his own flock were pushing the interests of those who wanted to introduce drinking into Scottish dance halls?
I am surprised that we have heard nothing today from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) who started all this, and for the best of all reasons, because he wanted to prevent public house licences in dance halls. If the hon. Gentleman wants to prevent public house licences in dance halls, he can join us in the Lobby tonight. Where is the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore)?

Mr. J. Grimond: Dancing, I expect.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman may be nearer the truth than he thinks. The hon. Member for Ayr will be doing the Parliamentary "twist" as usual. The hon. Member gave us a speech in which he supported the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West not on account of tales of what happens to young people in dance halls which have public house licences but because the dance halls were facing competition from dinner-dances and so on, and his hon Friend's proposal offered them a way to keep alive.
This was not the hon. Gentleman's last word on the subject. I am one of his constituents. I was born in his constituency, I live there, and I read the

local paper. On the following Friday, to my surprise, I read a letter to the editor of that paper from the hon. Member for Ayr explaining that he had supported his hon. Friend's proposal originally because he was worried about public house licences being granted in ballrooms—something which he had never mentioned in his speech here—and apologising for what he had done. I presume, therefore, that he, too, will join us in the Lobby to fend off the bogy which he has raised.
The dangerous consequence of the tactic adopted by hon. Members opposite is that, if people had not been thinking previously about getting public house, licences in ballrooms, they are thinking about it now. One thing which the Under-Secretary of State did when replying eventually to the debate—it took about four hours before he rose to his feet—was to clear away any misunderstandings which might have prevented people from applying. I think that he will agree that I am not being unfair about this. I will read his words if he likes, but I think that he will be prepared to accept my paraphrase.
7.15 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State said that there had been some misunderstanding and ballroom proprietors may have thought that they were under an obligation to keep their premises open for the full extent of permitted hours. He said that this was not true, and the Government were taking pains in Clause 3 (4) to put this into print. If there had been any misunderstanding, this would clear it up. Secondly, he said that, in adjudicating on whether or not such a licence should be granted, a licensing court had no need to take into consideration whether there were plenty of licensed premises in the area. This applied particularly to Glasgow, of course, where the public ballrooms are generally in the centre of the city where no one could say that there was any lack of public house facilities round about. All that, he said, can be set aside by the licensing bench, more or less clearing the way and giving an indication to the licensing magistrates that the Government were not averse to that course being taken.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us tonight that we can rely upon the good sense of the licensing


magistrates. I have not seen his brief but I am fairly sure that that is what it will be. So far, in the greater part of Scotland, the magistrates have not been so foolish as even to countenance any such licences, except in Edinburgh, of all places. I think that this is right. As I recall it, there are only 12 or 13 such places, and most are in Edinburgh.

Sir M. Galpern: All in Edinburgh.

Mr. Ross: All in Edinburgh.
I shall not start rushing to Edinburgh right away. The place to go for dancing is Glasgow. We take our dancing seriously. We take a pride in our dancing. We glory in it. There is a great deal of fun for young people in dancing; it is an excellent relaxation and enjoyment. This is what the youngsters want. They do not want drink mixed up with it. As I said in Committee, they want Mr. Acker Bilk but they do not want Johnnie Walker.
The other point about the licensing bench is that we are due to have another Bill about licensing. No doubt, many hon. Members do not look forward to this prospect with any great joy. This further Bill will deal with the licensing bench. My guess is that it will eventually wipe out the powers of magistrates in relation to this matter and hand them over to some other authority. We do not know who that other authority will be. Although we know what licensing benches have hitherto done and what their attitude has been, we have no guarantee that the replacement will be as good. But we shall be tied to what is decided in regard to the possibility of public-house licences in public ballrooms.
I myself was not worried about this subject until the hon. Gentleman raised it. However, if the seed was not there, it is there now firmly planted in the minds of some ballroom proprietors. One ballroom proprietor, one of the best known and most highly respected, with considerable experience of every aspect of ballroom work in Glasgow and in Scotland, has said that the introduction of drink into the ballroom will lead to a lowering of the moral tone of the ballroom.
With all these factors in mind, apart from the powerful objections raised by

my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), I ask the Government to judge the merits of the new Clause. How can the Under-Secretary of State reassure us now about the dangers which were enough to rouse many kirks and sufficient to stir Conservative Members to turn in their tracks and vote against their own proposal—that is what happened between the Thursday and the Tuesday—and then send letters to their constituents apologising for their original sin? How can he assure us that the dangers are not ever present and will not increase because the hon. Gentleman clarified the law and made it easier by Clause 3 (4) for the ballroom proprietors to have this licence?
I regret very much that the discussion on the Bill, which I hoped would be non-controversial, got off on the wrong foot and that the Under-Secretary of State submitted to the pressure behind him and to the organised gang which was prepared to support the brewers. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of what the hon. Member for Ayr said in his closing words on this matter:
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will have the judgment and good sense to accept them"—
that is, the Tory Amendments asking for drink in ballrooms—
because otherwise I am afraid he is in for some trouble."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Scottish Standing Committee,10th May, 1962; c. 38.]
If ever there was a threat, that was it. Of course the hon. Gentleman got trouble, and he backed down in relation to clubs. However, I hope that he will face up to his hon. Friends now and will appreciate the danger of ballrooms having public house licences. I hope that he will rise to the occasion and, for once, will listen to my hon. Friends and will accept the new Clause. If he does not do that and things take the turn which his hon. Friend said they would take, then we are in for trouble; and goodness knows the Secretary of State is in deep enough trouble at the moment.

Mr. Maclay: I cannot remember an occasion in the last 5½ years when I was not in trouble.

Mr. Ross: This is an occasion when the right hon. Gentleman can lighten his


burden of trouble. He has had other opportunities in the past and has failed to take them. Let him take this one and accept tie new Clause.

Mr. Brooman-White: For the gratification of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), let me endeavour to answer this case without the brief. Let me first deal with some points which the hon. Gentleman raised about the conduct of the discussion on this Clause upstairs. He saw some rather sinister significance in the fact that the winding-up speech was not made until the debate had run for a considerable time. Let me tell the Committee—this is perhaps unusual for someone who is an ex-Whip—what was in my mind in rising late in that debate. We were anxious to make progress with the Bill, and we were having the co-operation, which we appreciated, of hon. Members opposite. A lot of hon. Members wished to speak.
It will be the experience of hon. Members who know the practice and atmosphere of Scottish Committees that often an intervention from the Front Bench, rather than curtailing discussion, merely gives substance on which further speeches can be founded. It is always a matter of judgment at which stage one can intervene most effectively to get the business through and at the same time to have a reasonable, proper and sound consideration given to matters, which the Scottish Committee always gives to its affairs. There was nothing more sinister in it than that. We have no intention of accepting the Amendment, which we had considered very carefully beforehand. I took the trouble to make some investigations into it beforehand.
Hon Members opposite believe that there is a danger of a substantial number of certificates being granted to dance halls if we fail to make an alteration in the existing law. If we thought that there was any possibility of those things occurring which hon. Members fear, we should be just as worried as they are. We do not think that there is any such danger. It is not for me to speculate on teenage reactions—I am getting a little out of touch with them as the years go by—but I am fortified by the view of a number of hon. Members which coincide with mine, namely, that one has the impression that most teenagers do not want drink in their dance

halls. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) referred to men who ruined their dance halls by allowing people to take drink into them. If we felt that there was any serious prospect of drink being available in teenage dance halls, we should be deeply concerned and would deplore any such development. But that is not what we are concerned about.
The problem which was put to us was that there is a certain number of dance halls in Edinburgh which traditionally have catered for an entirely different clientele. They are frequented, and have habitually been frequented for a long time, by young and middle-aged married people and provide facilities for dancing very similar to those provided by the hotel lounge. The dance-hall proprietors argue, with a certain amount of justification, that, because people can go to a hotel lounge and find that type of music and atmosphere and have a drink, they tend to slip away to the hotel lounge for a drink. They say that if this sort of facility is available in a hotel, why should not it be available in a dance hall? Under the existing law, if a dance hall can convince the local licensing court that no danger will arise, it can have a public-house licence.
The second leg of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir. M. Galpern) suggests that dancing in public houses is an evil which should stop. I know that in certain areas of Scotland—for instance, in Glasgow—local action is taken and music is not permitted in public houses. In other areas, such as Edinburgh, there is dancing with facilities for drink in public houses. The hon. Member for Shettleston drew a very gloomy picture of what might occur if drinking connected with dancing were allowed. This has not been the experience in Edinburgh, where the police assure us that there has been no undue disturbance in public houses which have dancing and drinking. These places have not presented the police with a problem.
The police also assure us—this weighed very heavily in our consideration—that they feel that there is a limited number of dance halls in which no public danger would arise if there were facilities for drink. These are dance halls which cater for an elderly, "square" clientele


which do not want teen-agers in because they would disturb their clientele. Teen-agers would be extremely unlikely to go to them because the atmosphere in them appeals not to teen-ages but to "squares". The view of the police in those areas is that danger will not arise.
We can see no likelihood of trouble which would justify us in making any change in the existing law. I think that the fears which have been expressed are unfounded. I hope that people in Scotland will accept this and will find that those fears are unfounded. We have had no advice from those who should know which suggests that any change in the law in this respect is necessary.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I should like the hon. Gentleman to deal a little more carefully with some of the points which have been made. He has talked loosely about certain dance hall proprietors and the clientele that frequent the dance halls. I take it that he was referring to the larger dance halls that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) and by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. J. Henderson). The Under-Secretary spoke as if the clientele and the proprietors did not want the teen-agers. Was he saying that they would exclude the teen-ager? Of course they would not. We know that large crowds of teen-agers go to many of the large dance halls.
There is an age limit for the supply of alcoholic liquor. Presumably, if the Government get their way, alcoholic liquor is to be available in the dance halls. What precautions are there in the Bill to ensure that under age teen-agers who would be in a dance hall would not either be served with, or get from their friends, liquor which could be procured by those who are over age in the dance hall? This is a new danger to which teen-agers will be submitted by an extension such as is proposed by the Government.

Mr. Brooman-White: There would be no greater danger than now exists in other places where there are facilities for dancing and drinking. As regards the exclusion of teen-agers, a number of dance halls which cater for an older

clientele display a notice saying that people under the age of 21 are not admitted. If that were violated, the licensing court having granted a certificate on the assumption that a dance hall was not frequented by teen-agers, the fact would, no doubt, be brought to the notice of the court by the police and it seems to me to be inherently unlikely that the certificate would be renewed. That would, therefore, be a safeguard.

Miss Herbison: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettlestan (Sir M. Galpern) will press the Clause to a Division. I say this because, again, the answer of the Under-Secretary has not been convincing. He has told us that if he felt that the fears which have been expressed on this side of the House and by only one hon. Member opposite had any basis, he would be worried, as we are. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about dance halls in Edinburgh for the young married people and the middle-aged married people, but those who have spoken in the debate are extremely worried about our young people. We know from the result of the debate upstairs that many parents in Scotland are also extremely worried.
Today, parents can be happy to know that when their sons and daughters, but particularly their daughters, go to a public dance hall, they are going to one where no drink will be available. Naturally, these parents are worried about what might follow the taking of drink in dance halls. When we are legislating, we ought to take the greatest care for our young people.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) is not present. It is also interesting that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has not spoken in the debate. It seems to me that the Government rejected the Clause in Committee only because they were able to convince their supporters that what they had been trying to get all along could have been got by the dance halls. It was as a result of that debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston put down the Clause, because he wanted to ensure that these dance halls, where our young people should be able to go freely, their parents knowing that they would be in good, happy surroundings, should not be licensed.
am certain that the majority of our people, even those who are not teetotal, including many parents who themselves may have a drink, would not want their young people to go to dance halls where drink was provided. The majority of Scottish people will, I feel sure, support the Clause. The Under-Secretary seemed to think that my hon. Friend had painted

Division No. 244.
AYES
17.36 p.m.


Awbery, Stan
Hilton, A. V.
Ross, William


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hooson, H. E.
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Bence, Cyril
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Skeffington, Arthur


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Dalyell, Tarn
Kenyon, Clifford
Spriggs, Leslie


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stress, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Fitch, Alan
Lubbock, Eric
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)



Harper, Joseph
Manuel, Archie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mason, Roy
Mr. Hannan and


Herbison, Miss Margaret
piummer, Sir Leslie
Sir Myer Galpern.




NOES


Atkins, Humphrey
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nabarro, Gerald


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey


Biffen, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Noble, Michael


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Bishop, F. P.
Hendry, Forbes
Osbom, John (Hallam)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hiley, Joseph
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Box, Donald
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Brewis, John
Hobson, Sir John
Percival, Ian


Brooman-White, R.
Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hollingworth, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hopkins, Alan
Prior, J. M. L.


Buck, Antony
Hornby, R. P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Burden, F. A.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pym, Francis


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Iremonger, T. L.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
James, David
Rees, Hugh


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Roots, William


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Seymour, Leslie


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharpies, Richard


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth.W.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Skeet, T. H, H.


Cleaver, Leonard
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp;amp; Chiswick)


Collard, Richard
Lambton, Viscount
Smithers, Peter


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Leburn, Gilmour
Storey, Sir Samuel


Corfield, F. V.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Talbot, John E.


Coulson, Michael
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Tapsell, Peter


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Longbottom, Charles
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Curran, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'str, Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Temple, John M.


Deedes, W. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thatcher, Mrs, Margaret


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McLaren, Martin
Thornton-Kemsley Sir Colin


Donaldson, cmdr. C. E. M.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


du Cann, Edward
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Walder, David


Duncan, Sir James
Marshall, Douglas
Walker, Peter


Eden, John
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Wall, Patrick


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, William


Freeth, Denzil
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gilmour, Sir John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Woodnutt, Mark


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton



Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Montgomery, Fergus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Green, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Mr. Michael Hamilton and


Gurden, Harold
Morgan, William
Mr. Batsford.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

too lurid a picture. I do not think so. For that reason, I hope that we vote on the Clause.

Question put,That the Clause be read a second time:—

The House Divided:Ayes 35,Noes130.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(PROVISIONS AS TO INSPECTION OF CLUBS BY POLICE.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the chief constable of a police force may, if he has reasonable grounds for believing—

(a) that any registered club is being so managed or carried on as to give rise to a ground of objection to the renewal of its certificate of registration, being one of the grounds of objection specified in section one hundred and seventy-four of the principal Act; or
(b) that an offence under the principal Act or this Act has been or is being committed in any registered club;
authorise a member of the said force, who shall not be below the rank of sergeant, to enter and inspect the premises of the club at any time or times.

(2) A member of a police force may, when acting by virtue of an authority given under subsection (1) of this section, be accompanied by another member of that force.

(3) If any person fails to admit a member of a police force who demands entry to the premises of a registered club by virtue of, or of an authority given under, this section or obstructs the entry to the premises of such a member, or if any person fails to allow a member of a police force who has entered any such premises by virtue of, or, of an authority given under, this section to inspect those premises or obstructs such a member in inspecting the premises, he shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction thereof shall be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

(4) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to the provisions of section one hundred and seventy-nine of the principal Act (which empowers a justice of the peace or a magistrate in certain circumstances to grant a warrant authorising a constable to enter the premises of a registered club, to search those premises, to seize documents and to take the names and addresses of persons found the re).(Sir M. Galpern.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): With this new Clause we can take the next two, that in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) (Police inspection of registered clubs), and that in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) (Police inspection of clubs), and we can also consider the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to the Second Schedule, in page 28, line 46, after "(1)", to insert "(a)", and in line 48, at the end, to insert:
(b) after the words 'off-sales certificate is in force' there shall be inserted the words or the premises of a registered club' and at the end of the subsection there shall be added the following proviso:

Provided that, in respect of registered clubs, a member of the police force below the rank of inspector shall not exercise any power of entry conferred by this section unless he has previously obtained the authority in writing of a justice of the peace, magistrate or member of a police force of or above the said rank and shall not exercise such power later than eight days from the date of such authority and shall exercise it at such time or times only as may be specified in the authority
There can, if necessary, be a Division also on the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock.

Sir M. Galpern: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I am glad to see the Secretary of State in his place to listen to what I think is a very important consideration in connection with licensing. There has been a remarkablevolte faceon the part of the Government. Upstairs in Committee the Government moved a new Clause which was to replace the ill-fated Clause 16 and which carried out, more or less, the recommendations of the Guest Committee regarding the inspection of registered clubs. For some reason or another best known to the Government they decided that that was too drastic a measure. We know that as a result of colossal pressure brought to bear upon them by their own political interests, members of their Tory clubs and related clubs of that kind, they decided not to proceed with Clause 16 and brought in what they thought was a compromise Clause.
It was the most fantastic compromise Clause one could have had. I think that they knew before they started that the new Clause which they proposed in Committee was one which would never receive the support either of those in favour of inspecting clubs or of those against the inspection of clubs, and, as was anticipated even by the Government, the Clause was ultimately defeated.
Having introduced, first, Clause 16, which was a reasonable Clause, which, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) seeks to reintroduce with a minor amendment, and having then dropped it, and then having introduced a compromise Clause on which they were defeated, why do the Government take no action at this stage to introduce a Clause which would in effect carry out what, I think, were the most decisive recommendations of


the Guest Committee? It was a Committee which was sot up by the Government themselves, and they charged the Committee with several duties among which was consideration of the question of the supervision of registered clubs.
A serious aspect of this problem is that the number of registered clubs has grown from 700 in 1938 to 1,245 in 1959. That is a remarkable increase. I shall not now deal with the reasons for the increase. Suffice it to say that they are mainly there for the purpose of selling drink and that to that extent they are welcomed by the drink interests and encouraged in all their various activities.
But that increase is staggering and the Guest Committee itself said:
As we have already indicated, we have received a considerable volume of representations to the effect that there is a type of club which exists primarily for the supply of liquor on Sundays.
The Committee went on to deal with the question of supervision, saying:
It is equally important in our view that they should be subject to the same supervision by the police.
That is to say, the same supervision as that to which ordinary public houses and hotels are subject at present.
The Committee went on:
This is a matter on which we have received a great deal of evidence and we are entirely satisfied that the existing law makes it unduly difficult for the police to exercise adequate control over the conduct of clubs.
At present, the law says that only by the granting of a warrant by a magistrate authorising the inspection of a club, or the seizure of documents in a club, can that action be carried out. For some reason or other clubs have been completely exempted from the kind of supervision exercised by the police over respectable hotels—some of the most respectable in the country—and of the most outstanding, modern and contemporary public houses.
Why do not the Government act in the light of the evidence, and of the recommendations of the Guest Committee? Having made two attempts, why do not the Government make a third attempt, in the hope that something can be done? The Government seemed keen to do something, but now I understand the position to be that, having failed in their efforts, they propose to leave the whole

business alone and to take no further action. Is that a reasonable attitude for a Government to adopt over an important matter, they having referred it to an outstanding Committee which gave the matter great consideration? It is not as though, at the outset, the Government rejected recommendations on these lines. They have had two "stabs" at it, but, because they were unsuccessful in respect of both they are now proposing to act in a childish fashion. They are, in effect, saying, "If you do not want it the way we want it, we will not play with you any more."
The Government make no effort to try to introduce something which would prove acceptable to the House as a whole. Even the Under-Secretary of State said in an offhand way, "Well, we are going to defend this new Clause", as if to say, "If you do not want to have it, we will do nothing at all about it." Why did the Minister fail to pay attention to the recommendations of the Guest Committee, which said, in paragraph 60 of its Report:
Under existing law, however, there is already a police right of entry into even the residential accommodation of licensed hotels of the highest standing and repute, and no evidence has been put before us to suggest that this is generally resented or leads to undesirable consequences. We understand in fact that it is very seldom that fault is found with the method of police supervision of that type of establishment; no doubt this is because the police show a considerable measure of tact and discretion in performing this duty. In our view the genuine club would not find police supervision burdensome and would have no more reason than the genuine hotel has to resent a police visit from time to time, whereas"—
and this is very significant—
we can conceive of no more salutary method of preventing breaches of the law in the less strictly conducted type of establishment.
The new Clause submitted by the Government during the Committee stage was not accepted because it was a farcical proposition. Under its provisions. a chief constable, having satisfied himself that club members were misbehaving, would issue a warning twelve weeks in advance, and for no shorter period than eight days, that he was proposing to send somebody to inspect the club if they did not behave themselves. If there was still reason to believe that the misbehaviour was continuing, a police sergeant would appear on the scene.
Obviously, after a warning of that kind over such a length of time, the club members would have had an opportunity to "pull up their socks" and become paragons of virtue, so that no one would be able to find fault with them. Afterwards, they could misbehave themselves again and the chief constable would have to go through the same warning procedure all over again. There was no limit to the number of warnings which could be given. It was not a case that, having given one warning, a second one would not be given. It was necessary for the chief constable to go through the same procedure, using the same machinery, each time.
My Clause represents a compromise. I seek to embody within its provisions some of the features of the "substitution Clause" introduced during the Committee stage by the Government, and recommendations of the Guest Committee. I have compromised with the terms of the old Clause 16 which gave free entry to a police inspector into licensed premises without any warning whatever, by introducing a proviso that such inspection shall not be authorised unless, as it says in the new Clause, a chief constable,
has reasonable grounds for believing … that any registered club is being so managed or carried on as to give rise to a ground of objection to the renewal of its certificate of registration …
I am "marrying" the old Clause 16 to this new Clause—in an endeavour to produce an "offspring" which will be acceptable to the Government—by saying that there will not be indiscriminate, unregulated free entry to clubs by police officers, such as the Guest Committee recommended. I am narrowing it to the extent that only if a chief constable had reasonable grounds for believing that misbehaviour was occurring would he authorise an inspection by someone not below the rank of sergeant, not an ordinary police constable as at present. I am glad to be able to move this Clause, because I wish to overcome the present difficulties and desire that the recommendations of the Guest Committee should have some bearing and be recognised by the House during the formulation of the provisions in the Bill.
We know that quite a lot of unseemly conduct and a great deal of misbehaviour—to put it mildly—occurs in a number of registered clubs. Are we,

in effect, to say in the Bill—the Guest Committee having recommended supervision by the police of public houses and licensed hotels—that the clubs are to be told, "You are such well-behaved boys that we shall not even inspect you"? That would encourage club members to defy every form of the licensing laws. Quite a lot of misbehaviour goes on, but it is difficult to establish that fact. I hope, therefore, that attention will be paid to the recommendations of the Guest Committee and that the desires of the Government, thwarted as they were during the Committee stage proceedings, will be resuscitated. I hope that the House will agree that this may be achieved by enabling a police officer, of no lower rank than a sergeant, to visit these clubs.
I am not saying that I am happy about the wording of the Clause. I prefer the original Clause 16. But I am anxious to effect a compromise and to be helpful. I agree that there should be some supervision; and that where a chief constable had reasonable grounds for believing that a misdemeanour had been committed, or misbehaviour was occurring, he would, without the warning originally proposed—which was a stupid proposition—authorise a member of the police force, not below the rank of sergeant, to carry out an inspection. That would contribute to the proper and better operation of the provisions pertaining to registered clubs, especially in view of the many additional facilities which they have been given by the new Clauses introduced by the Secretary of State.
In view of the mildness of the provisions in the Clause, and the desire to weld opinion on both sides of the House, I hope that hon. Members will agree to give the Clause a Second Reading.

8.0 p.m.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles): There are certain traditions of this House which relate to the occupancy of the Chair, not only in the main Chamber but in the Committee on a Bill upstairs. I am well aware of the fact that if an hon. Member is designated to occupy the Chair for the Committee stage of a Bill upstairs it is not considered appropriate or proper that he should address


the House on Second Reading of a Bill. I was in that position in relation to the Bill we are considering. Therefore, on Second Reading I deprived myself by precept of the House from declaring my feelings in relation to police inspection of clubs.
Being the occupant of the Chair in Committee upstairs, naturally I had to consider points of order during discussions which ensued over what appeared to me a very long period of sittings. If it had been a precept of the House that those who had occupied the Chair in Committee should also be considered to be acting somewhat improperly if they addressed the House when it considered the Bill on Report and Third Reading. I would not have taken part now. That, however, is not a precept of the House, nor is it considered that anyone on the Panel of Chairmen must by precept refrain from speaking on Report.
Had I been able to speak on Second Reading and not been the occupant of the Clair in Committee upstairs in the deliberations on this Bill, I would have spoken and voted against Clause 16 as it was originally introduced. I should have found it difficult to agree to the Government's substitute new Clause which was introduced when the original Clause 16 was suspended during the consideration upstairs. I should hesitate to rise even now in relation to the new Clause put before the House by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) if I did not feel deeply on the subject or if I were in any way inhibited by the rules of the House.
I have based my thinking, however, not necessarily on the observations of what may or may not transpire in Glasgow where the hon. Member has his seat and where he has held the distinguished position of Lord Provost. I have based my thinking, as one is inclined to do, on my own constituency. In Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles there are 41 registered clubs. I have had representations from more than 30 of those clubs, all of them reputable and all of them comprising members who are people in various walks of life.
In particular I draw the attention of the House to the clubs in the largest town in my constituency, Hawick. I

had representations from nine clubs in Hawick. They were united in feeling resentment against Clause 16 as it was originally introduced. The members of those nine clubs are 3,000 of my constituents. In the main they would be considered in other clubs to be members of working men's clubs. They felt resentment that their clubs should cease to be private and should be open to inspection as any licensed hotel may be.
I do not propose at this stage to go into detailed argument why they felt as they did, but they certainly represented their feelings strongly to me and I represented them to my right hon. Friend. Once I was nominated for the Chair of the Committee it was not right or reasonable that I should take further action, but I rise now to oppose the proposition and the new Clause put forward by the hon. Member for Shettleston.

Sir M. Galpern: May we take it that Jedburgh is in the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member? I had a letter from a minister in Jedburgh supporting inspection of registered clubs.

Commander Donaldson: That may well be. Jedburgh is certainly in my constituency. I wonder, however, if the hon. Member has received any communication from Jedburgh Conservative Club, which in the main consists of what he would think are, and I believe are, decent, honest working folk. They work in the mills of Jedburgh and they resent the thought of police intrusion in a private club.
I am not competent to speak about Glasgow, for I do not know the conditions of some of the registered clubs there, but I do know the conditions of clubs in my constituency. I am sure that if the House were to reverse the decision taken in Committee there would be even more resentment, not only against the Government, but against hon. Members on both sides of the House who supported a new Clause to allow police to intrude in private clubs. I have in mind the remarks of the Lord Chancellor in another place when the English Bill was going through Parliament. I should have thought that Scots Members of Parliament would have thought deeply before they imposed a condition which was not applicable in


England and was excluded from the English Bill.
It is my firm belief—my right hon. Friend may wish to consider this when he replies to the debate that there are already provisions in Scottish law which are quite competent to deal with the recalcitrant club whose members abuse the law. I am certain that the law in Scotland is much more easily enforced than the similar law in England. I am convinced that there is ample provision to deal with the misconduct of clubs or members of clubs. They can be dealt with adequately by chief constables and other members of the police force in Scotland. Therefore, I must raise my voice against acceptance of this new Clause.

Mr. Ross: If things were as easy as the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) suggests, he may take it from me that we should not be pursuing this battle on the subject of inspection. It is not so easy for chief constables or police forces to act as he would wish the House to believe it is. Will he tell me Why the chief constables, including the chief constable of his area, request that this power should be granted to them, and that this change should be made?
The hon. and gallant Member will be aware of the existing power Which is provided in Section 179 of the principal Act, which states:
If a justice of the peace or magistrate is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
(a) that any registered club is being so managed or carried on as to give rise to a ground of objection to the renewal of of its certificate of registration,…
or,
(b) that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed in any registered club;
he may by warrant authorise a constable to enter the premises of such club …
and so on. It is not so easy to get a warrant because evidence has to be obtained on oath. Secondly, proceedings in relation to a club taken under that provision would be very much more offensive to the people of Ha wick, and certainly to people in Kilmarnock, than what is recommended in the procedure suggested by this new Clause.

Commander Donaldson: The operative words, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) underlined, are, "on oath". I should sooner that the members of clubs in my three counties and the troubles to which they are subjected were dealt with by information on oath than by what might well be considered to be information by tittle-tattle or such other things as come to the attention of the police. It was on that point that my constituents felt deeply. The point on which my constituents mainly object is that of the police entering clubs without warrants and without proof.

Mr. Ross: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He is being unfair to the police and his constituents. The alternative to a procedure such as this is that the police get into clubs in disguise and we have snoopers getting information in that way before proceeding to get evidence. That is a most undesirable procedure, and we want to get rid of it.
I am distressed by the Government's actions in this respect. The Secretary of State was the first to appreciate that the Bill aroused less controversy in Scotland than anyone had expected. One of the reasons for that was that there was give and take between people holding very strong views one way and another; there was more or less a balance of compromise. People were asked why they supported a Bill which permitted considerable extensions of Sunday drinking in Scotland. Even the Churches were prepared to accept the Bill. This was because the Government were accepting this recommendation of the Guest Committee. But by their action now, the Government lead me to feel that I must vote against the Bill, because they have upset that balance of compromise and have done so in a shocking way.
Here I should apologise to the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) who interrupted earlier when I was speaking about clubs and about letters which I had received. I mistook this Clause for the earlier Clause dealing with a change of hours. I received letters from clubs inside and outside the constituency in relation to this matter. I wrote to them and said that I was prepared to yield to the balance of


argument, but in fact we never had a chance to consider Clause 16. A day or so before we reached it the Government presented us with a new Clause, and the decision on that new Clause was taken before we discussed Clause 16. The new Clause was unacceptable to people who did not want inspection of any kind and unacceptable to people who wanted inspection to be a reality. Those of us who did not like the new Clause because inspection would not have been a reality, accepted certain tactical advice, otherwise we should have voted for those members of the Government who were prepared to accept an unacceptable Clause and it would have been in the Bill today. But when he was asked what his position would be in relation to Clause 16 if the Government's new Clause were not carried, the Under-Secretary of State did not give us a clear answer but left us guessing about whether they would stand by their original Clause. In the event, the Government's new Clause was voted down—and I detected no dismay on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Brooman-White: I was in a certain difficulty—and I accept the hon. Member's comments on that—in not knowing how far it would be in order for me to anticipate what our attitude would he when we reached the original Clause 16. If my memory serves we well, I said that one could not have an each-way bet. I said that the new Clause was, we thought, the best which could be devised in the circumstances, and that was the Clause which we defended. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee did not misunderstand the position. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), who wound up the debate, said that if it were a question of having the new compromise Clause or nothing, he would sooner have nothing.

Mr. Ross: If the choice were between that Clause and nothing, then we would s000ner have nothing, as I said myself. But the Government had already put up a Clause which they had defended in another place. On Second Reading and elsewhere they had proclaimed their determination to have inspection by the police.
8.15 p.m.
I will leave that part of the argument and come to the merits of the case. Some people have said that we cannot have two separate laws, one in England and one in Scotland, but, whether we like it or not, that is what we have. It is part of our pride as Scats that in 1707 we were guaranteed our separate legal system, and in many aspects of the law we have entirely different proceedings in Scotland from those in England. We should glory in the difference and certainly not use it, as certain people have used it in this case, to get our own way. Taking the whole social history in relation to licensing, it is little wonder that we have separate previsions in England and Wales from those in Scotland, and it will be a long time before we have one code applying to all three countries.
We are passing another Licensing Bill, which applies certain legal standards to behaviour and to hours in respect of clubs. Having laid down the law in relation to clubs, is it outwith the bounds of justice to ensure that the law will be kept? It is as simple as that. How often have we said that it is no use passing a law which cannot be enforced? Having amended the right of the police to ensure that the law could be enforced, it is absolute nonsense for that position to he defended by hon. Members merely for the sake of flattering a few constituents. I expect far more than that from hon. Members, otherwise I have no respect for them.
As I have said, I have received some letters, which I am prepared to read, but I hope that people will respect me for my principles. I am stating clearly what I feel about the matter. We have laid these legal obligations upon clubs. Why deny the police the right to ensure that they are enforced? There are no other premises, licensed or unlicensed, dealing with food which are not subject to inspection by the police. We have the ordinary public houses and the ordinary hotels—and let it not be forgotten that the ordinary hotels include such places as Turnberry and Gleneagles. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite ever feel uncomfortable when they are in Gleneagles Hotel because they know that it is open to inspection by an ordinary constable without a warrant?
The public house, hotel, licensed restaurant and licensed canteen are all open to inspection by the police at any time. So is the off-sales shop, although there is a difference to off-sales premises because the police must have reasonable cause for entry. Hon. Members may have read the proposed new Clause I have tabled on this subject. I propose to insert, after dealing with off-sales premises, the words:
… shall apply to registered clubs …
That is, that the police will be allowed to go into registered clubs and such premises only if they have reasonable cause for thinking that there has been a breach of the licensing laws. That seems fair enough. Surely there can be no objection to such a proposal.
I leave the treatment of these licensed premises as they are at present affected by Section 184 of the principal Act and go on to consider Section 185. In that Section is laid down the power of entry of the police to premises like temperance hotels, shops that sell food, ordinary restaurants, tea rooms, and so on. The only person who can enter without a warrant as a superintendent. If he does not enter, the person doing so must obtain a written authority—call it a warrant if you like—from a magistrate, a justice of the peace, a superintendent or a chief inspector. That written authority will give the time and date on which the call must be made. The visit must take place and the authority be exercised, within eight days of its being granted.
I propose that this is how the entry of clubs should be administered. Can there be any hardship in that? I should have thought that such a proposal would meet with agreement from all hon. Members and I urge the Secretary of State to give this his serious attention. If he does it will save him a lot of trouble in thinking up a new Clause of his own when the Bill reaches another place. I assure the Lord Advocate that the legal language of my proposal is impeccable because it is lifted from the statutes, a part of it from Section 184 and another part from Section 185 of the principal Act. The Lord Advocate may pick holes in my proposal but that is no guarantee that it is wrong. In fact, it is probably a guarantee that it is right.
The proposal I have made would seem to be a reasonable compromise of the fears expressed by those in clubs who think that they will be descended upon and their lives made miserable. Such fears are groundless because, as we know, what they fear does not happen in the case of public houses or hotels. As I have explained, an inspection could be carried out only by a superintendent or, if by someone else in authority, only after receiving the necessary permission to inspect.
Clubs should realise that plenty of safeguards would exist for them and also that they are in a privileged position. They should not, therefore, exaggerate the dangers and difficulties that would be involved. I am aware of the outcry there has been from hoteliers about this but from the point of view of simple elementary justice, they have been concerned that there should be inspection of clubs. The majority of clubs in Scotland, including the registered ones, are well run and well behaved. Any club that is well run would probably not see a policeman and if one did enter—probaby to make inquiries about a parking offence or something like that—I am sure that it would not be considered an untoward occurrence.
As I say, the fears that have been expressed about this are exaggerated, especially all this nonsense about the club being an extension of the home. There must be some strange homes. Many people live in residential and temperance hotels in Scotland. Should they be subject to a greater degree of inspection by the police than the few people who live in clubs, for there are very few residential clubs in Scotland—and I am comparing these premises with clubland in London.
Like other hon. Members, I, too, have received a number of letters. I will read one of them. It states:
Clause 16 of the above Bill which gives the Police right of entry to registered clubs without a warrant, gives great concern to members of this Club. who regard the right as a serious inroad into the liberty of the subject.
There is then a reference to the English position and the letter goes on:
If the Clause was not acceptable by the Government for England why should it be acceptable for Scotland? The inference would seem to be that members of clubs in Scotland are not able to conduct themselves so well as those south of the border … The club is


an extension of a member's home and in certain clubs he may in fact reside there. The members of this club and so far as I know of all other clubs in Scotland are very considerably perturbed at the Government's proposal and we trust that at the Committee stage of the Bill you will do your utmost to have the Clause deleted.
The letter is signed by the chairman of the club, and it is significant to note that it came from the Kilmarnock Conservative Club. That is where most of the pressure came from. We do not have a single working men's club in Kilmarnock.
We do not have labour clubs in Scotland in the same way, or to the same extent, as they have them in England and Wales. There are great stretches in Scotland where there is not a single political club that is registered and has a licence. The whole political roots of the Latour Party and the I.L.P. in Scotland were anti-drink—anti-brewery. Those who are concerned about nationalisation would do well to look up one of the unfailing resolutions of I.L.P. Conferences fifty years ago, which was the nationalisation of the drink trade.
8.30 p.m.
As I said in the Committee, I am convinced that in this respect the Secretary of State bowed to pressure from his own hack benchers, but it was pressure that he could have resisted with the support of the great majority of the Scottish people and the Church of Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles spoke about his constituents in Hawick. Had he looked at the petitions addressed to the Secretary of State in respect of one particular section of the Guest Committee's Report he would probably have seen quite a number of Hawick names amongst the 203,000 people who voiced their opinion.
What does the Secretary of State feel about the opinion of going on for a quarter of a million people who took the trouble to sign a petition on this subject? Surely, their interest, too, should be considered. The right hon. Gentleman had the full support of a majority in this House who were concerned about the original Clause 16, with some amendment. I regret that in throwing away that Clause the right hon. Gentleman threw away the whole principle.
I suggest that the Secretary of State should accept one of the three new Clauses. Naturally, "wir an weans are aye the best" and, unblushingly, I declare myself in favour of my own Amendment, impeccably drafted by the draftsmen of the bygone days of the Scottish Department. I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will think again, accept the principle of inspection and be less afraid than he has been of all these rather exaggerated claims about intrusion, invasion, and the rest. They can be met by this reasonable compromise, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Sir James Duncan.

Mr. Hannan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understood you to say earlier that the new Clause in my name was to be discussed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Discussed, yes.

Sir James Duncan: I want to be consistent, but hon. Members opposite are making that a little difficult, because none of these three new Clauses is the same, or very much the same, as those we discussed in Committee. Hon. Members who were on that Committee will remember that I was in a minority, and supported the Government on the revised Clause 16. They will also remember that I was one of a much smaller minority that voted for the original Clause 16. Therefore, I want to be consistent.
Each of the three new Clauses has a small fault in it. I do not like the idea in the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) of police having the right to enter at any time or times. I should like that altered. In the new Clause tabled by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), the right is left to a constable——

Sir M. Galpern: rose—

Sir J. Duncan: No, I cannot give way. I want to be brief—I do not want to take as long as did the hon. Member.
Section 185 of the principal Act states:
… A constable may at any time enter and inspect any temperance hotel"——

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me——

Sir J. Duncan: I know that there is a proviso later in the Clause, but the word used is "constable"——

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is really being unfair. I do not know whether he appreciates that a chief constable is also a constable, and the proviso states quite clearly that in this case a constable is someone of the rank of inspector. If the man is below that rank, he must carry written authority.

Sir M. Galpern: rose—

Sir J. Duncan: No, I must get on.
The new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock provides for Section 184, not 185——

Mr. Ross: Read it.

Sir J. Duncan: I have read it.

Mr. Ross: My new Clause refers to a change I make in the Schedule. The hon. Member will find the actual words in the last page in the Notice Paper.

Sir J. Duncan: It is all very difficult to follow, but I am reading the new Clause which refers to section 184, which deals with a constable.
Perhaps I might now refer to the last of these new Clauses, in which the authority to enter without a warrant is given whether or not a chief constable has reasonable grounds. That is in the proposed new Clause of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston, but not in that of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock.

Mr. Ross: It is in mine.

Sir J. Duncan: It seems to me that these are small faults and if they had been corrected I would have been very pleased to support one of the Clauses. In the cause of consistency, I find myself in a little difficulty.
I think that the legal position has been very greatly exaggerated in this debate, particularly among those who are supporting the clubs. The position is that there is police right of entry into these clubs. It is no good the clubs getting ideas that there is no right of police entry. The only difference is whether it should be done with a warrant or without a warrant. I hope that hon. Gentle-

ment will realise that this is a distinction. Nevertheless, it is part of the law that there is police right of entry.
I have been impressed by the Guest Committee's Report. It takes a very strong line. I was disappointed that I was in a minority in the Standing Committee. I think that in view of the evidence submitted to the Guest Committee there is a case for police inspection of clubs in certain cases—and there are not very many cases—without a warrant. From the information that I have obtained, it is extremely difficult for the police to obtain evidence from a club of the law being broken. It means that they have to infiltrate in some way. It takes a long time. There must be more or less constant breaking of the law. The breaking of the law has to be more than accidental. It seems to be the fact that the chief constable has to apply to a magistrate, send a form to the sheriff, find a couple of magistrates to sign it and only then can he enter the club on one occasion, and on that occasion he may not find anything wrong.
I do not believe that this is a very big problem in Scotland. There are very few clubs which break the law regularly. The vast majority of the clubs conduct themselves extremely well; but there is this minority, and Parliament throughout its history has had to deal with minorities. The vast bulk of the population are law-abiding citizens and Parliament has to deal with the minority of law breakers. We have to enable the law to be administered and carried out reasonably. In view of the Guest Committee's strong recommendation it seems to me that I should be consistent and vote for one of these Clauses.
There is the further point, mentioned by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, that the Church of Scotland is in favour of some form of inspection. Only this morning I received a petition—I do not know whether other hon. Members received it from the licensed trade in Forfar and Kirriemuir, in my constituency, advocating and petitioning that the Government should reintroduce some form of Clause 16 as it was in Committee. I feel that I must support one of the three Clauses. You made it a little difficult for me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker,


because you selected one Clause for Division and the others for discussion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I should make it clear that it was Mr. Speaker's selection. There can be a Division, if desired, on each of the Clauses, although they are being discussed together.

Sir J. Duncan: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understood you to say that there could be discussion on the three Clauses together, but a Division only on the first one. I now have to choose——

Mr. Hannan: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that he has yet to hear my speech?

Sir J. Duncan: I have disclosed my difficulty in supporting the first Clause. I do not think that the police ought to have the right of entry at any time or times." I will further consider the Amendment to the Schedule to see whether it meets my point, and I will certainly listen to what the hon. Member for Glasgow. Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) has to say in support of his own Clause. I shall support one of the Clauses, first, on the ground of consistency, secondly, because I think the Guest Committee was right, and. thirdly, because I think that the Government have made a mistake in not reintroducing some form of Clause in view of the strong recommendations of the Guest Committee.

Mr. Hannan: I had almost given up hope that any of these Clauses would be further considered by the Government, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) for his generous support of these three Clauses.
It would please some of us if, when the Secretary of State replies, he would wind up his speech by announcing "Those are my principles. If hon. Members do not like them they can be changed." I should like the Secretary of State to consider this point, and this is the first point that I make to the hon. Member for South Angus. This is an exact replica of the Clause which was rejected by the Government. So far as hon. Members opposite are concerned, this Clause, like Caesar's wife, is above suspicion. It could not have

a more reputable origin than from the Government benches.

Sir J. Duncan: That is the original Clause?

Mr. Hannan: The original Clause 16. The hon. Member for South Angus will recollect that in Committee he was about to expand on an Amendment which he had put down to insert the word "sergeant" and he will note that that word is incorporated in this Clause. I would not have the House think that we are all at variance. Indeed, we have backed the horse three ways to accept one out of the three. Our ingenuity ought to be recognised.
I think we are tackling this matter of the clubs in the wrong way. I think that we can tackle it best from the point of view of registration and of permits to set up clubs. I recognise that I may be out of order, but I should like to quote from the Report. If one looks at paragraphs 50 and 51 one finds the real reasons which lie behind this:
Clubs, unlike licensed premises, do not require a certificate from the licensing courts and do not come under the same detailed supervision of that court; instead, there is a system of registration by the sheriff. The law providesinter aliathat an application to the sheriff for registration must specify the objects of the club and must be accompanied by the club rules and a certificate by two members of the licensing court to the effect that the club is to be considered as abona fideclub and not mainly for the supply of liquor.
I, as a strong temperance supporter, can make the distinction which is disturbing the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson) and I put it to the hon. and gallant Member and to others that we have a right to look to hon. Members opposite for some support. Generally speaking, what legislation inevitably means is that well-conducted people have to band together and look for other well-conducted people to deal with the minority. It is time that the majority of well-conducted citizens were considered in these matters. We have a right as a majority to go into dance halls and other places of public gathering, including public houses and clubs, and not be met with the horrible atmosphere of over-drinking.
8.45 p.m.
To come to the merits of the new Clause, the Government themselves


introduced the Clause, word for word, in another place and the speech that was made on its behalf by the Government spokesman was tremendous. He had to meet opposition from noble Lords who normally would support the Government in this matter. The Minister said the Government recognised that there was an interference in private rights, but that was not a new principle and the Guest Committee found that the present law was being abused. This is not a defect in club law but it is a defect in the arrangements for its enforcement, and that is what we are considering.
As a democrat I take an exception to the fact that there should be close inspection of "pubs" and hotels, including even unlicensed hotels, and of restaurants, theatres and picture houses when the only places to be left out are clubs. What is the reason for this? Allegations have been made and I associate myself with them. I believe that it is because of pressure from people closely associated with the Government that they have weakened in this matter.
Another argument advanced for the new Clause was that the Government are satisfied that it is difficult for the police to spare the manpower for enforcement as the situation is now. The police at times had to hide behind bushes and even lamp posts, if it is possible for a policeman to do that, in order to detect offences. Then an application had to be made for a warrant and there was the timing of the raid. This is a most undignified situation in which to place responsible police officers who as an association made representations to the Guest Committee precisely on this point.
I put this further point to the Secretary of State. I am not a member of any club myself, but from my correspondence and from those who inform me in these matters, I understand that there are some club secretaries and officials who would welcome this police inspection because, again, they are perturbed lest their licences are upset owing to the unruly behaviour of recalcitrant members. They would welcome it, and they have expressed themselves in those terms.
I think there are members of clubs who, despite the steps which officials

take, will go on abusing the rules. They will ignore the permitted hours, they will get drunk, and in that case they will become obstreperous and cause further friction. Moreover, the Secretary of State will have been informed that some of the stewards of these clubs will say, "I have not got a single individual to whom I am responsible. it is a committee of twelve or ten, and some of the committee men are seeking private privileges for themselves"; no doubt, in extra drinking outside permitted hours.
I hope I have done sufficient by drawing the attention of hen. Members present to the new Clause in my own name and that of some of my hon. Friends. It is not an invention of mine. It was lifted word for word from the Notice Paper, with the substitution only of the word "sergeant" for "inspector". Since its antecedents, as far as hon. Members opposite are concerned, are above suspicion, and also as far as my hon. Friends on this side are concerned, in the sense that it seems to fulfil the wishes and the recommendations of the Guest Committee, I hope that it will receive their support.
In conclusion, I want to mention one other thing that happens, which is personally known to me, and which I think is an affront to the kind of life that these clubs engender. I know of one case in which, on a Sunday, an ordinary worker has a £5 note to bust. In my opinion stupidly, this man says he is going to the club, and that probably he will have none of it left when he comes back. Probably, his wife has about the same sum of money on which to keep the household for a week. Hon. Members may say that this is individual liberty and that we cannot legislate for this sort of thing, but, surely, we can make it more difficult, and deal here with those clubs which are purely and solely drinking clubs affording facilities like that.
Having said that and making the reservations and the distinction between the two kinds of clubs those genuinely trying to provide a service and the other against which the Guest Committee proposed and the police want to have these extra powers—I submit the new Clause to the House.

Mr. Maclay: The discussion to which we have just listened illustrates some of


the great difficulties with which we are faced on the matters with which this new Clause deals. I have listened with great interest to each of the parents of the new Clauses on the Notice Paper describing the merits of their children. I was fascinated to think that even the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) could ever conceivably have thought that he could blush over anything—but he said that he was unblushing about his own child this evening.
I quite sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) in trying to choose between the blandishments of the three hon. Members opposite, and I certainly understand his attitude to what is happening this evening. One of the interesting about our debates on the Bill—and I have followed them very closely, although it was not found practicable for me to serve on the Committee—has been that on many of the matters raised there has not been any of the normal party divisions. The arguments have cut clean across parties, and this has meant that many of the decisions which we have had to make, or which the Standing Committee has made, have been questions of judgment.
It has been difficult to find clear-cut principles. What we are discussing this evening is not the principle of entry. Entry is possible under the existing law, with a warrant. It is a matter of degree—a question of the way in which the entry should be handled. It is important to get that clear.
On many occasions during the passage of the Bill I have found myself in the interesting position of having to judge what is the wise and right thing to do without the guidance of an absolute principle to help me. I have had to try to judge what it is timely to do in Scotland by means of a Bill of this kind. Han. Members will remember that one major decision was that public houses should not open on Sundays. That was a question of judgment. It went against the Guest Committee recommendation. I can assure hon. Members that I have gone against no Guest Committee recommendation without the most careful heart-searching and weighing up of the arguments adduced on both sides, trying to arrive at the right balance at this

stage of development of our social life in Scotland.
Hon. Members opposite have alleged that the Government have given way to pressures from one section of the community. One hon. Member said that we had given way to pressures from our own supporters. If hon. Members opposite had seen the remarkable variety of representations that I have received on this subject they would not say that the pressure had came from any one section of the community. Clubs of every description wrote to me about it, including miners' clubs, Conservative clubs, ex-Service men's clubs, working men's clubs, athletic clubs, factory clubs——

Mr. Ellis Smith: I thought that there were no working men's clubs in Scotland.

Mr. Maclay: There are. I met a deputation from the Working Men's Club and Institute Union, which argued strongly on this subject.
If there has been any question of giving way to pressures—which I do not accept in the sense put to me by hon. Members opposite—they have certainly been pressures from a remarkable variety of interests, representing all sections of the Community. What is the democratic process except listening to opinion, especially when no hard, clear-cut principle or party line is drawn, and trying to judge what, in the long run, we are ready for, and what is wise?

Mr. Ross: The Working Men's Club and Institute Union Ltd., is English, with its headquarters at No. 27, Clerkenwell Road, London.

Mr. Maclay: But it has a substantial number of Scottish members. It is a growing movement in Scotland. It did not come to argue about English clubs.

Mr. Ross: Yes, it did.

Mr. Maclay: No. It argued on behalf of the Scottish clubs in its federation. It is a growing body in Scotland.
I am a strong believer in the club principle. On the whole, the spread of clubs will lead to wiser drinking habits, in almost every case. I know that there are certain areas where, alas, conditions in clubs are not very good. That is one reason why the Guest Committee made its recommendation about inspection,


and that is why I included it in the Bill. But I am quite clear that there is an argument for having something not so extreme and drastic as the existing powers. This was something which I thought should be argued in public—something on which we ought to ascertain the opinion of the House and of the country during the passage of the Bill through Committee and its various other stages in the House. That is what has happened.
9.0 p.m.
The Government have tried three different methods of doing what I myself think is not at all an unreasonable aim, that is, to give a warning instead of having to go to the extreme of obtaining a warrant and going in, in which event, when the matter comes before the court, either the case is dismissed or the club is struck off the register. For my part, I do not want that to happen, but it must be done in bad cases. I think that there is good reason for trying to give a warning to people that, if they go on as they are, there will be serious consequences, the intention being not to get them struck off but to get them into more sensible habits and ways in the club concerned.
What I have done throughout our consideration of the Bill has been to try to find a reasonable compromise between the extreme form of inspection, which was anathema to every club member, or practically every club member, in Scotland who registered his view, no matter what club he came from, and leaving things exactly as they were. We have tried various methods and we have put them before the Committee. For a variety of reasons—I agree that it was a peculiar combination which produced this result—the last proposal we made was defeated.
At an early stage, I made quite clear that on a number of matters we should be guided by the opinion of the Committee. On this occasion, one thing I am certain of, in spite of all the

ingenuity and the persuasive arguments of hon. Members opposite, is that none of the versions they have produced would necessarily be likely to command a majority at this moment. This being so, I think that I must bow to the decision of the Committee and leave matters as they were before.

Mr. Ross: Really shocking.

Mr. Maclay: It is not shocking. It may be shocking in the hon. Gentleman's view, but he must try to put himself in my position, not accuse me of yielding to pressures. He must give me the benefit of believing at least that what I have tried to do to the best of my ability is to judge opinion on a matter in which one must pay some regard to opinion. I repeat that there is no absolute principle involved. The principle of entry still exists. It is possible to obtain a warrant and go in and deal with a club in that way. We have tried to produce a modified method of doing it. We have not succeeded in this and, therefore. I think that we really must leave the matter where it stands man said that he had to bow to opinion. What opinion? It certainly was not the opinion of the Guest Committee. It was not the opinion of the Association of Chief Constables. What opinion has the right hon. Gentleman bowed to?

Mr. Hannan: The right hon. Gentle.

Mr. Maclay: I was trying to say that I had not bowed to opinion. I was explaining that I have tried to sense what the right course is at this stage of our social development in Scotland when we find violently conflicting views on this question among a broad cross-section of the people of Scotland. The argument does not run along party lines in any way. I think that the right thing to do is to accept what the Committee did.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 131.

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Winterbottom, R. E.
Mr. Hannan and Sir Myer Galpern.


Wilkins, W. A.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Balniel, Lord
Green, Alan
Morgan, William


Batsford, Brian
Gurden, Harold
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Biffen, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Nabarro, Gerald


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Neave, Airey


Bingham, R, M.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Noble, Michael


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Blyton, William
Hendry, Forbes
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hiley, Joseph
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Box, Donald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Percival, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Pitt, Miss Edith


Brooman-White, R.
Hollingworth, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hoosen, H. E.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Buck, Antony
Hornby, R. P.
Pym, Francis


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Burden, F. A.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Seymour, Leslie


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharples, Richard


Cary, Sir Robert
James, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Smithers, Peter


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kirk, Peter
Talbot, John E.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (portsmth, W.)
Lebum, Gilmour
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Cleaver, Leonard
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Collard, Richard
Lilley, F. J. P.
Temple, John M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Garfield, F. V.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Coulson, Michael
Longbottom, Charles
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Longden, Gilbert
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Loyeys, Walter H.
Wainwrlght, Edwin


Curran, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mabon, D. J. Dickson
Walder, David


Deedes, W. F.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Walker, Peter


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Ward, Dame Irene


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Whitelaw, William


du Cann, Edward
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Eden, John
Marshall, Douglas
Wise, A. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mathew, Robert (Honlton)
Woodnutt, Mark


Emery, Peter
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Worsley, Marcus


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mawby, Ray



Freeth, Denzil
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilmour, Sir John
Mills, Stratton
Mr. McLaren and Mr. Rees.


Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(LICENSING COURTS MAY GRANT RESTAURANT CERTIFICATES AND RESTRICTED HOTEL CERTIFICATES.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, after "which", to insert "(i)".
This is a paving Amendment for the Amendments in lines 4, 7, 15 and 20.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be convenient, I think, to take them together.

The Lord Advocate: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
This is a matter of tightening up. The first three of the Amendments relate to the grant of restaurant certificates and the last two to restricted hotel certificates. That are designed to meet an undertaking given in Committee in regard to what I might call the fish and chip operators.
I agree that it is undesirable that a certificate should be granted to premises which mainly cater for light meals. The Amendments ensure that the primary purpose of a restaurant or restricted hotel must be catering for main meals. If the main purpose of an establishment is merely a fish and chip business, it will not get either a restaurant certificate of the new type or a restricted hotel certificate.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:In page 2, line 4, leave out from "providing" to "for" in line 6 and insert "meals".

In line 7, leave out "and which" and insert:
(ii) so far as they are used, or intended to be used, for the said purpose, are principally used, or intended to be used, for providing the


customary main meal at midday or in the evening, or both; and
(iii).

In line 15, after "which", insert "(i)".

In line 20, leave out "and which" and insert:
(ii) so far as it is used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of providing meals to persons who are not residing there, is principally used, or intended to be used, for providing the customary main meal at midday or in the evening, or both; and
(iii).—[The Lord Advocate.]

9.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out from "or" to "for" in line 34, and to insert:
by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person;
(iii) to supply exciseable liquor in those premises to any private friends of a person residing there who are bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person".

This Amendment, again, is to implement an undertaking given in Committee. I agree that the Clause as it stands is not very well drafted. I take full responsibility for that. This Amendment is designed to ensure that anybody reading the Measure has at least a reasonable chance of understanding what it means. It splits up the subsection and makes clear who is to pay for the drink. There was some difficulty as to which person was which, as the Clause stood. This Amendment makes it perfectly clear that the person who has to pay is the resident and not the guest. This is purely a clarifying Amendment and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 38 leave out from "or" to "with" in line 39 and insert:
by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person".—[The Lord Advocate.]
Amendment proposed:In page 2, line 39, leave out "with" and insert "as an ancillary to."—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Mr. Ross: May we have an explanation of this momentous change being made to the Bill?

Mr. Brooman-White: Certainly.
This Amendment, also, is to meet an undertaking given in Committee. Some

hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), were concerned that when drink is provided with a picnic lunch to be taken away by a resident in an hotel, either on weekdays or on Sundays, it might be possible for that to be done in such a way that only a very small lunch would be taken away with a very large quantity of drink. We thought it inherently improbable, but, to meet any apprehensions, we propose inserting this phrase, which we have used throughout the Bill in relation to other meals, in order to make certain that the drink provided in those circumstances shall be in due proportion to the amount of food taken away for a picnic.

Mr. Ross: May I express my thanks to the Under-Secretary for his solicitude in meeting our unjustified suspicions about this?

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2.—(ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS REGARDING RESTAURANT AND RESTRICTED HOTEL CERTIFICATES.)

Amendment made:In page 3, line 5, leave out from first "for" to end of line 6 and insert:
the customary main meal at midday, or only for the customary main meal in the evening, that the premises fall within sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) or, as the case may be, sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a)".—[The Lord Advocate.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 3.—(APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF PERMITTED HOURS PROVISIONS.)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, to leave out from "requests" to the end of line 8 on page 5 and to insert:
and if they are satisfied—

(a) that a part of the premises (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the off-sale part ') is structurally adapted for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor for consumption off the premises; and
(b) that there is no internal communication to which customers have access connecting the off-sale part with a part of the premises used, or intended to be used, for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor for consumption on the premises, or that any such internal communication is capable of being closed to customers;

insert in the certificate the following conditions, namely—

(i) a condition that the off-sale part (which shall be specified in the condition) shall not


be used for the sale or supply of excise-able liquor for consumption on the premises;
(ii) a condition that any internal communication to which customers have access connecting the off-sale part with a part of the premises used for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor for consumption on the premises shall be closed to customers during any time when customers are present in any part of the premises; and
(iii) a condition that no customers shall be permitted to use any internal communication for the purpose of passing from one part of the premises to another part thereof;

and so long as the certificate is subject to the said conditions, the provisions of the principal Act, and the following provisions of this Act, relating to the permitted hours shall not apply to the off-sale part.
At the general half-yearly meeting of any licensing court held in October, nineteen hundred and sixty-two, the holder of a hotel or a public house certificate may, notwithstanding that such certificate does not require to be renewed by the court at that meeting, request the court to insert in the certificate the conditions set out in paragraphs (i) to (iii) of this subsection, and in relation to such a request this subsection shall have effect as if for the words from the beginning of the subsection to 'so requests' there were substituted the words 'A licensing court shall, if the holder of a hotel or a public house certificate so requests'".

This Amendment appears to be much bigger than it really is. Other consequential Amendments are in Clause 17, page 16. lines 21 and 24, and in the Second Schedule in line 49 on page 27.

The difficulty which we experienced during the Committee stage proceedings related to the splitting off of the off-licence part of the premises, and an undertaking was given that we would ensure that the off-licence part, where drinks could be sold during hours when in the on-licenced part of the premises they could not, should be shut off in such a way that there was no communication between the two from the point of view of the customers. Accordingly, we have made it clear that there should be no communication by customers between the off-sale and the on-sale parts of the premises. That is the basic part of the Amendment.

It seems to me that, as we have done it, and with the inserted conditions consequent on this, it is made clear that no customer can pass from one part of the premises to the other in order to attempt to drink out of permitted hours. This is a tightening up of the Clause which I hope the House will accept.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, to leave out "him at his own expense" and to insert
and at the expense of, that person".
This is consequential, as it were, on the right of the resident to treat his guest.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 4.—(PERMITTED HOURS IN LICENSED PREMISES, REGISTERED CLUBS AND LICENSED CANTEENS.)

Amendments made:In page 5, line 41 to leave out "three" and to insert "half-past two".

In page 6, line 6, leave out "three" and insert "half-past two".—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 5.—(EXTENSION OF PERMITTED HOURS IN CERTAIN CASES.)

Amendment made:In page 7, line 16, leave out from "or" to "six" in line 17 and insert:
section (Alternative permitted hours in certain athletic clubs during winter) or, as the case may be".—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Mr. Brooman-White: I beg to move, in page 8, line 28, at the end to insert:
(2) Nothing in this section shall affect anything done under section one hundred and twenty-six of the principal Act before the date on which this section comes into force, but anything so done shall, if in force immediately before the said date, have effect as if it had been done under the said section one hundred and twenty-six as set out in the preceding subsection.
The effect of this Amendment is that clubs which have a supper extension under Section 126 of the 1959 Act will be able have that extension continued under the Bill without the necessity for re-application. This is a purely transitional provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 12.—(PROTECTION OF YOUNG PERSONS.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 13, line 6, to leave out "in a bar".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): With this Amendment it will be possible also to discuss the following three Amendments to page 13. in lines 11, 15 and 17.

Mr. Ross: That would be agreeable, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
This Amendment is moved in the forlorn hope that the Government will give protection to young persons. We have had representations from the Scottish Temperance Alliance and also from the Scottish licensed trade on this matter. I find it difficult to think that protection for young people should be limited to the consumption of exciseable liquor in that part of the licensed premises which is in a bar.
The Clause says:
Subject to the provisions of section fourteen of this Act, in licensed premises the holder of the certificate or his servant or agent shall not knowingly sell exciseable liquor to a person under eighteen, or knowingly allow a person under eighteen to consume exciseable liquor in a bar, …
Why limit the protection in this way to this particular part of licensed premises? If there is danger in a bar there is danger elsewhere in licensed premises. I should prefer a much more comprehensive approach to this matter.
We should bear in mind the new type of licensed premises which we now see, and which we shall see in future, in which the bar recedes more and more into the back room. There is the business of making drinking more respectable and civilised so that people sit in saloons and lounges and are more fastidious in their decorative tastes, but the danger to young people remains the same. The danger is the actual drink itself. I do not think that drink for young people in expensively decorated, curtained and well-furnished lounges is any less a danger than it is in a bar. It may be even more dangerous because the places may be more attractive.
I should like to see an up-to-date attitude adopted to the protection of young people. As in so many things, the Government have been content to take a sort of mechanical attitude by readopting and vamping up old legislation. They have made no attempt to project their thought into the future about developments of licensed premises in Scotland in five, ten or fifteen years' time. I do not think that anyone can look with joy upon or take great credit for the amount of drinking which goes on among young people and the amount of drunkenness among young people.
During the course of the Bill I have never tried to pose as a teetotaller and I have not said that we should take restrictive steps in relation to people of mature minds. But we have a responsibility to ensure that we do everything possible to protect young people from an early addiction to alcohol and all the dangers which ensue. Our consideration in giving protection in this respect ought to have gone far beyond that in the Bill.
I do not want to elaborate the point, because we dealt with it at length in Committee, but I hope that the Government will adopt a much more constructive and realistic approach to the problem than they have hitherto.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Brooman-White: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) feels that we have not been constructive about this. We have fairly recognised the need, and have taken substantial steps in the Bill, to tighten the law in relation to the sale of drink to young persons where we feel the main danger lies—not only now but looking ahead—in off-sales to them.
The definition of a bar is
any place exclusively or mainly used for the sale or consumption of excisable liquor".
We have always felt that it was undesirable for young people to be brought into that sort of atmosphere, but it has long been the case that when of a suitable age they could have a drink of some sort provided by an adult if they were in another part of the premises. That has been the law for many years, and it has not given rise to any abuse of which we are aware, nor have we received any representations about it. We therefore feel that we should not change it. We do not want to be restrictive in circumstances in which the existing position has not given rise to abuse of which we have knowledge. In those circumstances, we prefer to resist the Amendment.

Sir M. Galpern: The hon. Member says that he has had no evidence on the subject. What sort of evidence would he like either authorities or hon. Members to adduce? Is it insufficient when we tell him that the incidence of drinking among people under 21—as he well knows—has trebled since 1946? What


lesson are we to learn from those figures except that all these blandishments persuading young people to go into beautifully decorated lounge bars are leading to more and mare people under 21 taking to drink? Is that not sufficient evidence?

Mr. Brooman-White: If I may reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), with the permission of the House, I would say that if there had been drunkenness in those circumstances, we assume that it would have come to the attention of the police and that we should have heard about it. Representations have been made by the police and others about the danger of off-sales to people of this age group in view of their present financial circumstances, and we have dealt with that. If there had been juvenile drunkenness to any marked degree along the lines mentioned by the hon. Member, action would have been taken and it would have come to our notice.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 13.—(AMENDMENT OF LAW RELATING TO SALE OF EXCISEABLE LIQUOR ON CREDIT.)

Amendment made:In page 14, line 32, leave out from "or" to end of line 34 and insert:
by a private friend of such a person who is bona fide entertained by, and at the expense of, that person, and if it is paid for with that person's accommodation".—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 15.—.(SPECIAL PERMISSION FOR CLUBS.)

Amendments made:in page 15, line 22, after first "the", insert "sale or".

In page 15, line 27, after "the", insert "sale or".—[The Lord Advocate.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 17.—(TRADING HOURS FOR OFF SALE PREMISES, ETC.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 16, line 17, to leave out "ten" and to insert "eight".
This Amendment is rather timely after the last remarks of the Under-Secretary. He said that representations

had been made to the effect that the authorities, including the police, were worried about off-sales to young people and its giving rise to drunkenness. The Amendment should, therefore, be welcomed by the Government. Indeed, I am rather surprised that the Secretary of State did not think of it himself.
According to the Clause, off-sale shops will remain open from 8 a.m. until 10 p.m. With due respect to the Under-Secretary and his balancing of opinion and also to the terrible tug of war that the Secretary of State has been having with himself over this matter, I am sure that when they look at this in the cold light of reason they will agree that to open for such long hours is unnecessary and undesirable. After all, why should off-sale premises be open even before most business and commercial premises start their daily activities? From 8 a.m. until 10 p.m. gives them 14 hours in which to sell liquor.
I realise that the Under-Secretary's answer will probably be that, while these are the permitted hours, they do not need to keep open. We shall, no doubt, also be told that an anomaly would arise in that most licensed premises stay open so that if off-sale premises closed at 8 p.m., off-sales would be permitted over public-house counters until closing time.
We have already been told that the police are not particularly worried about the sale of liquor to young people in public houses. It has been emphasised time and again that nothing can be consumed in public houses by very young persons. The moral of this is the place in which young people are most likely to get liquor and it is, therefore, all the more desirable that off-sale hours should be curtailed.
To suggest the closing time for off-sale premises of 8 p.m. is reasonable. Even then I would regard it as being far too late. I would rather see off-sale premises treated like ordinary shops and subject to the Act governing shop hours. However, my Amendment is a compromise which should lend itself to ordinary men. I will not exaggerate any of the difficulties involved, but merely content myself by saying that no one can suggest that people would be denied obtaining what they want if off-sale premises were open from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m.
I was prepared to support a reasonable change in the hours of off-sale premises, but the Government have gone too far. An anomalous position may have existed, but they have used that position unwisely. The Secretary of State has failed to appreciate what will happen when the Bill becomes law and what Scotland will be like in a few years' time. Not until then will hon. Gentleman opposite wake up to see what has been the result of the pressures brought upon them. There will be far more opportunities for people to drink. There will be more restaurants, hotels and other licensed premises, not only on weekdays but also on Sundays.
Since more opportunities will exist for young people to drink there is even less reason why off-sale premises should remain open for 14 hours a day. Indeed, I think that it is desirable to impose considerably more restriction. If the Government are already worried about sales in bulk to young people, why do they not do something about it? My Amendment presents one small opportunity for them to do something.
The whole of this Clause has been quite misconceived. Insufficient thought has been given to the problem of licensed premises, the balance of interest, justice, and the effects particularly on younger people. It is the young people who are the target today for all the advertisers, whether for clothes, cigarettes or, indeed, the sale of drink. Those people who make their living from the liquor trade are also making the young people their target, and I am afraid that, in spite of many of these Clauses, the Government will help them, wittingly or unwittingly. We have given the Government two or three suggestions. This Amendment represents a final and despairing attempt to do something, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it.

Sir M. Galpern: The main argument advanced for the extension of hours for off-sales premises was that a definite disability and penalty was placed upon the housewife in not being able to obtain liquor from off-sales shops when she was doing her shopping in the morning. That was the main argument in favour of the interminably long hours of opening for off-sales shops. We are prepared to accept that argument, but what

argument can the Under-Secretary adduce for keeping those places open until ten o'clock at night? Surely, the Government do not expect us to accept that a housewife suddenly remembers, between eight o'clock and ten o'clock in the evening, something she needs to buy if it has not been important enough to buy during normal shopping hours.
The hours between eight o'clock and ten o'clock at night will be the danger period for teen-agers, as I have seen so often in Glasgow. I have seen groups of young men and women carrying these containers, and bags filled with all forms of alcoholic liquor. It is during that period that they will start going into off-sales shops and then go on to parties in houses where, sometimes, a great deal of disturbance and nuisance is created. If the Government want to make it convenient for people to make purchases at off-sales premises during normal shopping hours, by all means let them do so, but how they can defend this extension is beyond all understanding.

Mr. Brooman-White: I can see the point of the arguments that have been very cogently put by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). Clause 12 imposes a limitation on much of what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had in mind. If there is to be a reduction in hours, I entirely agree that it would cause less inconvenience to shoppers to chop time off the evening period from eight o'clock to ten o'clock. The difficulty we face is that off-sales over the counter in public house premises are permitted during those hours.
That would mean that we would be denying to, perhaps, only a small number of premises, but nevertheless a number of premises—the wine shops and others—the chance to cater for what they have found it worth while catering for, and competing with public-house counter off-sales. We do not see any reason for that. There has been no abuse attributable to the wine shops. Indeed, the effect of the Amendment would be that anybody who wanted to make an off-sale purchase at that time of evening would have to go into a bar to do so. I should not have thought that it was desirable to force them to


go into a bar if they do not want to. Some may not, in certain circumstances, want to, and may find it more convenient to go to off-sale premises.
The Guest Committee in its Report pointed out that it is administratively difficult to have hours for over the counter off-sales in public house premises different from those for other off-sales premises. The gist of our case that! if off-sales are to continue over the counter in public houses up to the closing hour, it is illogical to restrict the same facilities in other premises which 'might wish to be open for off-sales during that time.

9.45 p.m.

Miss Herbison: It seems to me that the case that has been made by my hon. Friends is a very good one. They have put it logically and clearly. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I do not know how, at this stage of the Bill, the Under-Secretary can call to his aid recommendations of the Guest Committee. We shall have in all our villages and towns, if this Amendment is not accepted, off-sale premises open as early as eight o'clock in the morning and closing at ton o'clock at night. The only answer that we were given by the Under-Secretary is that off-sale premises are in competition with the public houses and that it would be unfair to those who own off-sale premises that the public houses should have something over them. I would have thought that the Under-Secretary would have been just as concerned with what might happen to our young people.
I have not seen the things happen in Glasgow that my hon. Friend, who lives in Glasgow, has seen, but my fear is what might happen if this Amendment were not accepted by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) is quite right. First, this was based on the housewives and on shopping and on friends dropping in unexpectedly. It seems strange that in Scotland, where we have almost rigid legislation for the hours when milk, bread and other things so important to the family can be sold, we do not find limitations on off-sale premises for the sale of drink.
It seems to me that in this, as in many of the other matters that I have

listened to today and in Committee, the Government have yielded all along the line, even before the Bill came to the House, to the pressure of the vested interests of the brewers and others. That seems to be quite evident to me. It is only if it suits their book that they bring to their aid the Guest Committee.

Mr. Brooman-White: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the hon. Lady's point about young people. I do not see how this provision would help. If they are under 18 they cannot make off-sale purchases. It is illegal. If they are between 18 and 21, I do not think that there would be any advantage in their having to go into a public bar to make the purchases.

Mr. Ross: Has not the hon. Gentleman heard that the police are worried about sales to young people?

Mr. Brooman-White: The answer is that we have taken steps under Clause 12 to tighten up the law relating to off-sale premises.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 16, line 21, leave out "a condition as is" and insert "conditions as are".

In line 24, leave out from "the" to "as" in line 25 and insert:
off-sale part as defined in the said subsection (2)) of those premises".—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(NEW FORMS OF CERTIFICATE.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 21, line 36, after "to", to insert "or for".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that it would also be possible to discuss with this Amendment that in page 23, line 13, after "to", insert "or for".

Mr. Ross: This Schedule contains a catalogue of do's and don'ts relating to new forms of certificate. Line 35 on page 21 of the Bill states:
… the certificate holder shall not sell or supply any exciseable liquor to persons who are in a state of intoxication.
If my suggested words are inserted after the word "to", it will read:
… the certificate holder shall not sell or supply any exciseable liquor to or for persons who are in a state of intoxication.


That seems to me to be reasonable. The only question will be whether or not it is possible to place this responsibility upon somebody or other.
It amazes me when we hear how good everybody is in this trade and that nobody gets drunk. But, at least, once a person is intoxicated I am sure it ought to be possible to recognise the fact and a licence-holder should be able to take some steps to ensure that such a person gets no more to drink. That is the simple intention of these added words.
This is about our last chance to get some crumb of comfort from the Under-Secretary. I have never known a Bill of this character go through the House with so little amendment. This does not indicate perfection in the Bill. It shows weakness and lack of confidence on the part of the Government. They do not know what they are handling and they do not know how far they can go, so they tend to leave things alone. I am sure that this is not the best of the Amendments which have been moved by my hon. Friends either here or in the Committee, but I think it is worthy of consideration. If we are going to give these new certificates it will be much easier to administer this condition than it would be in many other licensed premises.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will discard his brief and will not turn down this Amendment, telling us that it would be impossible to administer and that it would be unfair, but will accept it. If he finds that he has made a mistake he can rectify it in the next Licensing and if, on the other hand, he finds that it is a worthy addition to our licensing laws he can incorporate it in the next Measure.

Mr. Brooman-White: I hope that I will not raise false hopes in the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) by leaving my brief on the bench, but I have been so convinced by its merits that I must deny the hon. Member his crumb of comfort. We entirely accept the object which he is trying to achieve but I do not think that the insertion of the words would help in a practical way. The licence holder is already obliged to prevent drunkenness on the premises and therefore he would be committing 
an offence if he gave a drink to somebody who was drunk or to somebody who was on the verge of being drunk or in peril of being drunk.
The Amendment would make him guilty of an offence for serving a drink which might be taken outside by somebody who was drunk or about to be in a drunken condition of which the licence holder could not reasonably be expected to be aware. If the licence holder served a drink to be handed on to somebody else who was hovering on the brink of inebriation we are satisfied that the law as it stands is adequate to deal with the situation.

Mr. Stan Awbery: If a publican supplied a sober man so that he could give the drink to a drunken man he would be perfectly in order according to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Brooman-White: A man might get away with it once but the publican would be very careful not to let him get away with it a second time.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: I call the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in page 21, line 41, leave out first "other", and with it can be taken the Amendment in the hon. Member's name in page 23, line 18, leave out first "other".

Mr. Ross: I really do not think that they are worth moving.

Mr. Brooman-White: I beg to move, in page 22, line 3, to leave out from "committed" to the end of line 5.
This and the Amendment in line 46 are drafting Amendments to bring the Schedule into line with the provisions of the Betting and Gaming Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:In line 46, leave out from "or" to "for" in line 49 and insert:
by a private friend of such a person who isbona fideentertained by, and at the expense of, that person;
(c) the certificate-holder may supply such liquor to any private friends of a person residing in the premises who arebona fideentertained by, and at the expense of, that person
In page 23, line 4, leave out from "or" to "with" in line 6 and insert:
by a private friend of such a person who isbona fideentertained by, and at the expense of, that person".

In line 6, leave out "with" and insert "as an ancillary to".

In line 32, leave out from "committed" to end of line 33.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(AMENDMENTS OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Amendments made: In page 25, line 41, leave out "'section"' and insert "'applications'".

In line 43, leave out "subsections (1) and (2)" and insert "subsection (1)".

In line 50, after "apply", insert "also".—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Proceedings on the Licensing (Scotland) Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Maclay.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Further Amendments made:In line 49, leave out from "nor" to end of line 4 on page 28 and insert:
where by virtue of subsection (2) of section three of the Licensing (Scotland) Act. 1962, a licensing court has inserted such conditions as are mentioned in that subsection in a hotel or a public house certificate held in respect of any premises, to the off-sale part (as defined in the said subsection (2)) of those premises.'

In page 28, line 11, leave out "section six" and insert:
sections (Extension of permitted hours in the afternoon in certain licensed premises and clubs) and six".

In line 25, leave out from "or" to end of line 27 and insert:
by a private friend of such a person who isbona fideentertained by, and at the expense of, that person, and if it is paid for with that person's accommodation".

In line 43, at end insert:
26. In section one hundred and seventy-nine (which confers on the police certain powers of entry under warrant into registered clubs), in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "or the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1962".

—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The next two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) have

been discussed, and are not selected, namely, in page 28, line 46, after "(1)", insert"(a)".

In page 28, line 48, at end, insert:
(b) after the words off-sales certificate is force' there shall be inserted the words 'or the premises of a registered club' and at the end of the subsection there shall be added the following proviso:
Provided that, in respect of registered clubs, a member of the police force below the rank of inspector shall not exercise any power of entry conferred by this section unless he has previously obtained the authority in writing of a justice of the peace, magistrate or member of a police force of or above the said rank and shall not exercise such power later than eight days from the date of such authority and shall exercise it at such time or times only as may be specified in the authority.

Mr. Ross: They certainly were discussed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but the suggestion that they are not selected rather goes against what Mr. Speaker said. He said that if I wanted, I could have a Division on them.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If Mr. Speaker said that, that is so. Does the hon. Member wish me to put the Question on his Amendment?

Mr. Ross: Yes. I beg to move, in page 28, line 46, after "(i)" to insert (a)

Question, That "(a)" be there inserted,put and negatived.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not propose to put the Question on the next Amendment.

Further Amendments made: In page 30, line 35, leave out from "or" to "with" in line 36 and insert
by a private friend of such a person who isbona fideentertained by, and at the expense of, that person".

In page 30, line 36, leave out "with" and insert "an an ancilliary to".—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Orders of the Day — Third Schedule.—(REPEAL OF ENACTMENTS.)

Amendment made:In page 33, line 58, at end add:—


8 &amp; 9 Eliz. 2. c. 60.


The Betting and Gaming Act, 1960.


In section twenty-six, in subsection (1), the Words "and in any condition contained in any certificate granted under the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959".

—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

10.4 p.m.

Mr. J. Maclay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has pursued a very interesting course since its origin in the Scottish Office once it was thrown on the tender mercies of both Houses of Parliament. I should like to thank most profoundly my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the most effective way in which they have handled what is by no means a simple Bill, but is, in fact, a very complex Bill. I should also like to thank, with real sincerity, all hon. Members who served on the Committee which dealt with the Bill. On a Bill which raises very strong feelings they have exercised a very reasonable degree of restraint in expressing the views they wished to express.
I do not think that the House would want me to make a long speech on the Bill now. It is a useful addition to the Statute Book, because it carries forward the licensing laws for Scotland, though not the whole way, because more will have to be done about licensing in Scotland. I commend it to the House as one which serves a very useful purpose.

10.5 p.m.

Sir M. Galpern: In view of what the Secretary of State has said in approbation of the Bill, I must express my disagreement with him. The Bill will not be welcomed in Scotland. The Government have missed a great opportunity to modernise conditions in Scotland. All that they have done is to gladden the hearts of the people who sell liquor in Scotland and elsewhere. They have introduced new restaurant and hotel certificates, and have made provision for Sunday drinking in public houses which have restaurants—something that the Scottish people have not asked for.
At the end of the day those members of the Government who have been responsible for introducing this revision of Scottish licensing law will regret it. The general body of Scottish opinion is not voiced by vested interests. In Committee and in the House the Government have yielded far too readily to vested interests, which are concerned purely with the exploitation of the sale of drink to young people. I have been told by someone who is actively engaged in the

licensed trade in England that since the passing of the English Licensing Bill his firm has been unable to cope with the tremendous increase in demand for its products. The vast majority of the Scottish people are anxious to see some enlightenment in our way of living, but not by the means adopted by the Government, through the agency of the Bill.
The Scottish Tourist Board is trying to attract people to visit our country. We have been told that one aim of the Bill was to provide reasonable facilities for tourists, and to enable them to enjoy the scenery with heightened appreciation. All that will happen is that in future the Tourist Board will be able to spend money advertising the beauties of Scotland and saying, on its posters, "Come to Scotland. We have the finest drinking facilities that can be obtained anywhere"—and now, thanks to the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon—"Visit our ancient monuments—our disused mines."

10.7 p.m.

Miss Herbison: For once the Secretary of State judged correctly the atmosphere of the House When he said that he did not think that we would wish him to say much at this stage. I am sure that most of us did not, because we feel that the Bill is still full of great pitfalls for unwary young people, and that the Government have given way to pressure both from their own back benchers and from outside interests. As a result, one of the most important matters, concerning registered clubs, is left in such a state that the recommendations of the Guest Committee upon it have been entirely reversed.
Having listened to our discussions today, particularly those following the statement made by the Secretary of State earlier, I wish that the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State had, during the past months, tried to improve our economic position in Scotland instead of giving their precious time and thought to this Measure. In my constituency, people will not be listening to the wireless at 10.45 this evening or watching television to find out what happened to this Bill in Parliament today. In the homes of many of my constituents and the homes of thousands of others in Scotland today


people are sick at heart wondering what their future and their families' future will be.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Hear, hear.

Miss Herbison: For eleven years, the Government have had their priorities all wrong. In the working out of the Bill, their priorities again have been wrong. Like my constituents, I am sick at heart tonight thinking of what is happening to good, decent Scottish people.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). When this Bill first came before us, it had considerable support in Scotland. Many of us welcomed the fact that we were to get rid of quite a lot of anomalies in our licensing laws. Does the Secretary of State think that it is a better Bill now than it was when it began its passage through Parliament? I do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, who shines in these moments when he is sitting on the Front Bench far more than when he is on his feet giving us legal advice, is grousing and grumbling about just now, but I can tell him that his Bill gravely disappoints me.
I had hoped to give the Bill wholehearted approval at this stage. I cannot. I shall not divide the House against it. I think that I have made my position clear throughout. We have missed an opportunity of examining this whole subject in the light of the problems which we shall face in the next five or ten years with the new facilities which will be available.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North, I feel that we would have done far better to devote our time to considering the problem of closing pits rather than opening the "pubs" and other licensed premises. The Secretary of State, instead of sitting here listening and doing nothing about the problems which undoubtedly will arise, ought to have been interviewing the

Prime Minister and demanding action in the industrial scene in Scoltand.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That is going beyond what is in order on the Third Reading.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Hannan: I am greatly disappointed with the Bill as it now leaves the House. At the beginning, many thousands of citizens who have been striving to provide better social conditions and trying to instruct their young people in the finer qualities and ways of life, when consulted about the Bill gave way on several points in order that they could safeguard others which they held very dear. One, of course, was that the public houses of Scotland should not be opened further. They gave way on off-licences. They gave way on several other proposals so that reasonable agreement could be reached on other matters in the Bill.
The Bill was regarded by people in the Churches and elsewhere as one which had gone as far as possible to meet their wishes. However, I fear that they have been let down very badly because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) said, under this Bill drinking will be more prevalent in Scotland than ever before. I believe that many people have been deceived because the granting of restaurant and restricted licences will introduce by the backdoor the practice of drinking on Sundays. In the weeks ahead greater opportunities will be sought for licences, special licences and the rest. I regret that the Government saw fit to reject our very good proposition on dance halls.
I add my personal protest that the Government have, for some years, spent so much time on betting and gambling Bills——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep to what is in order on the Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL DISABLEMENT CLAIM (MR. M. E. BARRINGER)

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Noble.]

10.16 p.m.

Mr. John Eden: I am very grateful for this opportunity to discuss in the House a misfortune which has befallen one of my constituents named Mr. Barringer. It will be for the convenience of the House if, first, I set out in chronological order some of the main facts of the case which I wish to deploy.
The story starts in November, 1959, when Mr. Barringer was employed by a glassworks. He was carrying a sheet of plate glass, which weighed about 1 cwt., when he accidentally twisted his right knee. At first, the accident did not appear to be too serious and he was treated under the National Health Service for a strained tendon. He was provided with special creams to rub in his knee and with crepe bandages, but, although he asked for it at the time, he was not given an X-ray.
The pain persisted and ultimately at the beginning of April, 1960, about six months after the accident, he was booked by a specialist for a non-urgent X-ray examination to take place in May of that year. Mr. Barringer, however, was not happy about this. The pain was more acute than seemed natural with just a strained tendon, and, as he was anxious to get the matter settled so that he could get back to work, he went, at his own expense, to another specialist who arranged for him to be X-rayed about a month earlier, on 14th April.
As a result of this examination, he underwent an operation on 20th April for the removal of a small piece of bone from his knee. Nine days later, he was again examined and then sent to a hospital in Southampton for deep-ray treatment of a cyst which had been found in his knee. This treatment continued until 10th June. On 1st July he was examined by a medical board which subsequently decided that a loss of faculty had resulted from the industrial accident on 3rd November, 1959, and the extent of the disablement was assessed at 40 per cent. from 3rd May until 2nd

November, 1960. This, as Mr. Barringer well understands, was a provisional assessment. It resulted in his receiving a disablement pension of 34s. a week.
During June and July, he regularly attended clinics at Boscombe Hospital. On 26th July, he was told that as a result of the inspections which had taken place and with the pain continuing as it had been, his leg would have to be amputated. He asked for a second opinion, which was given to him. He went to Westminster Hospital and on 3rd August the original opinion was confirmed. As a result, on 4th September his right leg was amputated to the hip.
On 7th November, Mr. Barringer appeared before a medical appeal tribunal. The tribunal concluded that the extent of the disablement resulting from the loss of faculty brought on by the industrial accident should be assessed at 15 per cent. for the period 3rd May to 2nd August, 1960, this latter date being the day before he was given the second opinion which confirmed that his leg would have to be amputated.
That resulted in a reduction in assessment from 40 per cent. to 15 per cent. and came at a time of extreme distress to my constituent when he had just learned that his leg would have to be amputated. It meant that there had been an over-payment of about £37. Graciously, however, repayment was not requested and he was able to keep that money.
In commenting upon its findings, the tribunal said that there was
a constitutional condition present before the accident, symptomless till then, which was brought to light and accelerated by the accident.
It is this finding which I wish to challenge.
I am quite certain that eminent people were serving on the tribunal and I do not for one moment cast any aspersions on their integrity or professional standing. Even so, how can they be sure that the constitutional condition—in other words, let us be frank about it, cancer—was present before the accident? In the tribunal's own words, it had remained symptomless until the accident occurred. The tribunal claimed that it
was brought to light and accelerated by the accident.


Could it not conceivably have been caused by the accident? Is our knowledge of cancer in this country, or, indeed, in the world, sufficiently far advanced to enable anyone to be categorically certain as to its origin in any one case?
There is a variety of opinions on this subject. I am told that the view of the Imperial Cancer Research is that
it is not possible to state the age of any cancer whether it be in the bone or elsewhere in the body at the time of an operation.
These views, of a body directly concerned with the disease, are an important reflection. I underline them by repeating the view of Imperial Cancer Research that
it is not possible to state the age of any cancer … at the time of an operation.
In this case, it was six months after the accident that the first X-ray examination was made. Had it not been for the pressing action of my constituent, it might have been even later had it been left to the medical authorities. Who, therefore, can be sure about what happened during those six months? An eminent surgeon has written to Mr. Barringer to say that, in his experience over the past ten years, sarcomas such as my constituent has suffered take anything from three to six months to develop from initiation. We must surely all recognise that in dealing with cases of this kind, there is room for considerable doubt and even amongst highly professional persons there can be a variety of opinions.
The story of my constituent does not, alas, end even there. Since the amputation, Mr. Barringer has continued to suffer severe pains. During the past few months an additional scourge has been added in the form of deep-seated arthritis affecting his neck, shoulder, arm, and his remaining leg. He is receiving special treatment for this and also for a pleurisy condition brought on when he fell from an ambulance when his artificial limb failed to lock.
In his present condition, as the House will clearly understand, Mr. Barringer is not able to work, and he has a wife and two young sons, aged 12 and 11, to support. This man, before his industrial accident, was well and fit. There was no visible cloud on his horizon. He was working actively, and keeping a happy and contented home together. Yet, fol-

lowing the accident, apparently such a minor one, he has suffered severe physical pain and substantial loss of earnings.
So even if we assume, as the medical appeal tribunal did, that the constitutional condition was present before the accident, are we not justified to assume that had the accident not taken place there would have remained to Mr. Barringer many years of active hard work during which the problem of supporting his family would not have loomed nearly so large and formidable as it must do now to him in his present condition?
My hon. Friend's powers, I know, are very limited in a case of this kind. I am sure that all hon. Members have experienced similar cases in which they have tried to help constituents and found that there comes a point beyond which statutorily they have no powers to go. I am aware that my hon. Friend cannot give any direction to the tribunal. Mr. Barringer himself also clearly understands this. Let me say here that Mr. Barringer and I are both grateful to my hon. Friend and to his predecessors for the sympathetic attention they have already given to this case and for the care with which they have heeded the representations which have been made to them.
What we want now, if I may put it this way, is advice and guidance from my hon. Friend. I claim that, in view of the six months' delay, of the limited extent of our knowledge about the origins and causes of cancer, and of the subsequent serious aggravations undoubtedly brought on by the accident itself, there are more than sufficient grounds for a reassessment. Is it not perfectly clear that since the tribunal's decision there has been, to quote the words written to me in a letter by my hon. Friend,
unforeseen aggravation of the effects of the accident"?
In these circumstances, even though time limits may have expired, and even though it may not be in strict conformity with the regulations, cannot my hon. Friend, without raising any false hopes, indicate a way in which Mr. Barringer could pursue his claim to have his case heard once again?
My statement of this case has been brief. The facts are straightforward and


the plea is easily understood. Mr. Barringer is not a malingerer or a scrounger. Over the years I have come to know him well. He is genuine, conscientious and sensible and a man who, in adversity such as few of us would wish to experience, has found an immense reserve of courage. I have the greatest respect for him and for his brave young wife, upon whom there falls a heavy burden of work and responsibility. I want to help Mr. Barringer, but I find that my powers as a Member of Parliament, as perhaps my hon. Friend finds his powers in his present office, are limited.
Can my hon. Friend indicate any course of action or direct us to any society or organisation which would bring help to this very deserving young family in their hour of need? I feel that a case like this deserves such assistance as the State can give. I hope that my hon. Friend, without raising false hopes, can point out some course which my constituent can pursue.

10.31 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Richard Sharpies): My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) presented his case with the force and clarity which one would expect from him. There is nothing between us in our sympathy for Mr. Barringer in the very distressing circumstances in which he finds himself. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that. There is no need for me to rehearse the events. My hon. Friend set them out clearly.
My hon. Friend referred to the Medical Appeal Tribunals and I think that it might be helpful were I to say a few words about the position of such tribunals, which are statutory authorities established under Section 38 of the Industrial Injuries Act. The function of the tribunal is to hear appeals from claimants who are dissatisfied with the decision of a medical board on medical questions involved in a claim to disablement benefit under the Act, and also to consider cases, such as the case of Mr. Barringer, where the Ministry is of opinion that the medical decision ought to be considered by a tribunal.
My hon. Friend referred to the composition of the tribunal. As he knows, it must consist of a chairman and two medical practitioners. The appointment of the chairman, in England and Wales since the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, has been in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. The medical members are invariably of consultant status and are nominated either by the Royal College of Physicians or Surgeons or by the medical faculties of the universities. There is the right of appeal from the decision of a tribunal to the Industrial Injuries Commissioner only on the ground that a tribunal decision is erroneous on a point of law. But leave to appeal in such a case must be granted either by the tribunal or the Commissioner.
As my hon. Friend knows, it would now be considerably out of time for such an appeal to be made here—in fact, about 17 months. If Mr. Barringer wished to appeal to the Commissioner he would have to satisfy the Commissioner not only on the grounds on which he wished to appeal but also on the reason why he had left his appeal so late. I put that to my hon. Friend in all fairness so as not to raise any false hopes in that direction.
I must also in fairness warn my hon. Friend that the Commissioner cannot substitute a different decision for that of the medical appeal tribunal. All he can do, if he considers that there has been a decision which is erroneous on a point of law, is to send the case back to the tribunal for another hearing. As my hon. Friend recognised, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has no power to interfere with a decision of a medical appeal tribunal and he has no power to arrange for a hearing by another tribunal.
Apart from the reconsideration to which I have referred on the direction of the Industrial Injuries Commissioner, a review of the decision of the medical appeal tribunal can take place only in the following circumstances. First, if a medical board is satisfied by fresh evidence that the decision was given in consequence of a non-disclosure or misrepresentation of a material fact. Secondly, if a medical board is satisfied that since the decision was given there


has been unforeseen aggravation of the results of the relevant injury. Prior leave by the medical appeal tribunal is required before a medical board can consider an application for such a review.
I have tried to set out the position as fairly and clearly as I can without wishing in any way to raise any false hopes either on the part of my hon. Friend or Mr. Barringer, but there are two points to which my hon. Friend referred and to Which I wish to give particular attention. First, there is the difference of opinion about the cause of this disability. My hon. Friend himself said that this was a matter of considerable doubt and that there were a variety of opinions in the medical profession. It is precisely because of the difficulties of deciding cases of this kind that they are referred to a medical appeal tribunal.
He also referred to the time which elapsed between the initial treatment by Mr. Barringer's own doctor for the strained tendon and the arranging of an X-ray examination. I think my hon. Friend said that might have contributed to the disability as the injury was left too long for a cure to be effected. That was a point which certainly would have been considered by the medical appeal tribunal although, as he knows, treatment is not the responsibility of the industrial injuries medical authorities. I realise only too well that cases will arise from time to time where a claimant like Mr. Barringer is disappointed with the decision of a medical appeal tribunal, but I think that the House will recognise that at some stage there has to be a body charged with the responsibility for making a decision binding both on the appellant and upon my right hon. Friend.
Parliament has put this responsibility upon the medical appeal tribunals which as I hope I have shown are very

qualified to exercise it. Somewhere or other there has to be finality in a matter of this kind. Bearing in mind the qualifications and the status of those who have the responsibility of sitting on these tribunals, I think it would be impossible to arrange for appeals to some other body with even more highly qualified medical members since the tribunals already have the services of doctors who are among the most eminent in the medical profession.
I realise that what I have said may be disappointing to my hon. Friend and to Mr. Barringer, but I should be quite wrong if I were at this stage to raise false hopes. I hope that what I have said will at least go some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend and his constituent that, however disappointing may be the outcome of all the work which my hon. Friend has done in pressing this case, it has been considered at the very highest level and that in any case my right hon. Friend the Minister has no power to intervene in this decision.

Mr. Eden: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his sympathetic answer to the points which I made, even though he has not been able to give any promise to my constituent. May I ask whether the services of any of his local officials could be made available to Mr. Barringer in trying to prepare his case in the hope of getting a rehearing from the tribunal? Are there local people who could come forward to assist him in dealing with this matter?

Mr. Sharples: If I may reply, very briefly, with the permission of the House, the local National Insurance office will give all assistance possible and will be only too pleased to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.